Prophylaxis Of Invasive Fungal Infections Research Articles

Antifungal Prophylaxis with Posaconazole in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Using Sirolimus for Prevention of Graft-Versus-Host Disease

Invasive fungal infections (IFI) have emerged as a leading cause of morbidity and infection-related mortality among allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) recipients over the past two decades. Several new drugs have recently been introduced as antifungal prophylaxis, supported by results of prospective randomized trials. In agreement with the international guidelines, a mold-active antifungal prophylaxis is strongly recommended in high-risk patients receiving allo-HSCT, considering efficacy, different pharmacokinetic, drug-drug interactions, and toxicity profile of the various antifungal drugs.Posaconazole, a triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity and a favorable toxicity profile, is the drug of choice for patients with graft versus host disease (GVHD). Consequently, posaconazole prophylaxis in allo-HSCT recipients is administered in combination with immunosuppressive drugs for GVHD prophylaxis and/or treatment, most commonly cyclosporine (CsA) or tacrolimus.Sirolimus is an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), largely used for GVHD prevention and treatment, but extensively metabolized by CYP3A4. As posaconazole strongly inhibits CYP3A4 its coadministration with sirolimus is contraindicated by the manufacturer of posaconazole, and up to now poorly described in literature.In the San Raffaele Haematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, from 2010 to 2015, we retrospectively identified sixty-six patients that received posaconazole oral suspension as primary (n=43) or secondary (n=23) antifungal prophylaxis after allo-HSCT.The majority of patients were affected by acute leukaemia (67%), not in remission at time of allo-HSCT (55%), and with a previous allo-HSCT reported for 50% of them, carrying an high risk for developing a post-transplant IFI. Median follow up was 357 days (range 43-1884) after HSCT. Posaconazole administration was given for a median of 221 days (range 13-966).Thirty-two patients (49%) received posaconazole during engraftment phase, while 28 (42%) and 19 (29%) patients for IFI prophylaxis in the setting of acute or chronic GvHD respectively.A concomitant administration of sirolimus was performed in 49 patients (74%). Sirolimus concentrations were monitored two times a week, while posaconazole was controlled in patients' serum on a weekly basis, during the first two months of treatment.We observed a 55-70% steady-state dose reduction of sirolimus in 19 patients, after posaconazole introduction. Alternatively, patients with ongoing posaconazole prophylaxis received an initial empiric sirolimus dose reduction at 1 mg/day.The co-administration of posaconazole and sirolimus resulted safe. Discontinuation was reported mainly in patients with documented IFI, who required a change of the antifungal drug. No adverse events potentially associated with sirolimus overexposure (i.e. sinusoidal obstructive syndrome, sirolimus-related thrombotic microangiopathy) were reported, although one-third of the patients experienced a transient and moderate elevation of sirolimus serum levels in the first week of coadministration.In this analysis post-transplant IFI occurred in 14 cases. The risk of developing IFI was influenced by type of prophylaxis, resulting in 12% and 39% of IFI during primary and secondary prophylaxis respectively (p value 0.013; OR 4.89, CI 1.39-17.11). However the most significant and strong association was reported in concomitant with insufficient posaconazole serum levels (<0.5 ml/L), a known reported limitation of the oral solution formulation especially in patients with intestinal GVHD and/or diarrhea (p value <0,0001; OR 35.14, CI 6.43-192).In patients with adequate posaconazole serum levels (>0.5 ml/L) the incidence of IFI was 5%, supporting the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in such conditions and generating interest for the use of the upcoming posaconazole tablets with improved bioavailability in allo-HSCT recipients.In our experience concurrent sirolimus and posaconazole use was well tolerated, with a 55% to 70% sirolimus dose reduction at posaconazole initiation and close monitoring of serum sirolimus and posaconazole trough levels in the first months of co-administration. DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost Analysis of the Use of Voriconazole, Posaconazole and Micafungin in the Primary Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants.

Objectives: Compare the cost of the primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFI) with voriconazole, posaconazole, and micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in hospitals of the National Health System (NHS) in Spain.Methods: A cost analysis was made for 100 days and 180 days of prophylaxis and a decision tree model was developed. The efficacy rate of IFI prophylaxis and survival rate with liposomal amphotericin B treatment of prophylaxis failures were obtained from randomized trials and a meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons. The model simulation was interrupted with IFI treatment (prophylaxis failures). The costs of medication and its intravenous administration in the hospital (in the case of micafungin) were considered.Results: In the non-modeled analysis, the savings per patient of prophylaxis with voriconazole ranged from €1,709 to €9,655 compared with posaconazole oral solution, from €1,811 to €9,767 compared with posaconazole gastro-resistant tablets and from €3,376 to €7,713 compared with micafungin. In the modeled analysis, the mean cost per patient of the prophylaxis and treatment of IFIs was €6,987 to €7,619 with voriconazole, €7,749 with posaconazole, and €22,424 with micafungin. Therefore, the savings per patient of prophylaxis with voriconazole was €130 to €3,664 and €11,132 to €30,374 compared with posaconazole and micafungin, respectively. The result remained stable after modification of the number of days of antifungal prophylaxis and the cost of antifungal treatment of failures.Conclusion: Taking into account this model, antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole in recipients of hematopoietic progenitor transplants, compared with posaconazole or micafungin, may represent savings for hospitals in Spain.

Posaconazole: Use in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Fungal Infections

Posaconazole, a fluorinated triazole antifungal drug, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for (1) prophylaxis against Aspergillus and Candida infections in immunocompromised patients at high risk for these infections and (2) oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC), including cases refractory to fluconazole and/or itraconazole. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has approved posaconazole for (1) treatment of aspergillosis, fusariosis, chromoblastomycosis, and coccidioidomycosis in patients who are refractory to or intolerant of other azoles or amphotericin B; (2) first-line therapy for OPC for severe disease or in those unlikely to respond to topical therapy; and (3) prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in high-risk hematologic patients and stem cell transplant recipients. In addition to approved indications, posaconazole has been used with success as salvage therapy for invasive mold infections and endemic mycoses in patients who are refractory to or intolerant of other antifungal agents, and as prophylaxis or salvage therapy in children, for whom indications are more limited owing to a paucity of data. Posaconazole has potent in vitro activity against a broad range of fungi and molds, including Aspergillus, Candida, Cryptococcus, filamentous fungi, and endemic mycoses including coccidioidomycosis, histoplasmosis, and blastomycosis. Importantly, posaconazole is much more active than other azoles against many Mucorales species and the combination of posaconazole with other antifungal agents may be synergistic. Hence, posaconazole is a potential candidate as a single or combination agent for difficult-to-treat fungal infections. Posaconazole has an excellent safety profile; to date, serious side effects are rare, even with prolonged use. However, newer posaconazole formulations achieve higher blood levels and it remains to be seen whether this may lead to an increase in the rate of adverse effects. Currently, posaconazole is used predominantly for prophylaxis and salvage therapy of fungal infections in adults. Indications for use as initial therapy of fungal infections and for broader use in children will depend on the accrual of additional clinical data.

Determination of posaconazole concentration with LC–MS/MS in adult patients with hematologic malignancy

BackgroundPosaconazole has an important role in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFIs), however oral suspension formulation is associated with variable bioavailability. The relationship between posaconazole concentrations achieved with the oral suspension and the IFI occurrence were analyzed along with demographic and clinical covariates (mucositis, diarrhea, liver enzymes, co-medications, and food intake). MethodsOne hundred twenty-two adult patients with AML/MDS undergoing remission induction chemotherapy were enrolled. They received posaconazole as prophylaxis and 557 posaconazole measurements were performed with a validated LC–MS/MS method. ResultsThe median (range) posaconazole concentration (ng/ml) on days 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21 was 271 (43–493), 564 (101–1461), 713 (85–2186), 663 (85–1994), and 497 (43–1872), respectively. Thirteen patients (11%) developed proven (1/13), probable (2/13), and possible IFIs (10/13). A significant relationship existed between lower steady-state posaconazole concentrations and a higher breakthrough IFI incidence by binary logistic regression (P=0.0108). Posaconazole value of ≥338ng/ml on day 3 predicted the achievement of ≥500ng/ml at day 7 (sensitivity: 78.5%, specificity: 66.7%, AUC: 0.747). Food intake (P=0.0014) and proton pump inhibitor (P=0.0063) were significantly associated with higher and lower posaconazole concentrations, respectively. ConclusionsTDM of posaconazole oral suspension formulation is recommended based on the exposure–response relationship of the present study.

Cost–benefit Analysis of Posaconazole Versus Fluconazole or Itraconazole as a Primary Antifungal Prophylaxis in High-risk Hematologic Patients: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

PurposePosaconazole is effective for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome during remission induction chemotherapy. However, a cost–benefit analysis of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole has not been conducted in Korea. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data for all consecutive patients who received primary antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction chemotherapy in our acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome cohort from December 2010 to November 2013. Patient characteristics and factors known as a risk of IFI were matched with propensity score analysis. We evaluated the medical cost according to the prophylactic antifungal agents (posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole), the development of breakthrough IFIs, and survival status after propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. FindingsOf the 419 baseline patients, 100 patients in each group were analyzed after matching. A significant decrease was found in the development of breakthrough proven or probable IFIs (3.0% vs 14.0%; P = 0.009) and the rate of empirical antifungal therapy (EAFT) (12.0% vs 46.0%; P < 0.001) in the posaconazole group. Total in-hospital medical costs per patient were not statistically different between posaconazole and fluconazole/itraconazole prophylaxis. However, the daily medical cost was lower for posaconazole prophylaxis, resulting in a total daily cost savings of $72 (₩79,458) per patient (P = 0.002). In the cases of breakthrough proven/probable IFIs, EAFT, and in-hospital deaths, the total medical costs per patient were significantly higher than in nonproven/probable IFIs, non-EAFT, and in-hospital survivors, as much as $7,916 (₩8,700,758), $4605 (₩5,062,529), and $11,134 (₩12,238,422), respectively. Costs for the antifungal agent used in targeted or empirical therapy were lower in the posaconazole group, resulting in a savings of $697 (₩766,347) per patient (P < 0.001). ImplicationsPosaconazole appears to be cost beneficial for primary antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients with hematologic malignancy, at a single center, in Korea. Cost–benefit is closely related with clinical outcomes, including breakthrough IFI development, EAFT, and survival status.

Posaconazole: a review of the gastro-resistant tablet and intravenous solution in invasive fungal infections.

Posaconazole (Noxafil(®)) is a triazole antifungal agent with an extended spectrum of antifungal activity. It is approved for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with neutropenia or in haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients undergoing high-dose immunosuppressive therapy for graft-versus-host disease, and for the treatment of fungal infections. The efficacy and good tolerability of posaconazole oral suspension administered three or four times daily is well established. However, in order to overcome pharmacokinetic limitations associated with the suspension, a new gastro-resistant tablet and intravenous (IV) solution were developed. This article reviews the pharmacokinetic properties of the new posaconazole formulations and briefly summarizes efficacy data relating to the suspension. The pharmacokinetic advantages of the posaconazole gastro-resistant tablet compared with the suspension formulation include less interpatient variability, better systemic availability enabling once-daily administration, and absorption that is unaffected by changes in gastric pH or motility; in addition the tablets may be taken with or without food. The posaconazole tablet achieves higher and more consistent mean plasma concentrations than the suspension and, therefore, it is the preferred option to optimize efficacy in the prophylaxis or treatment of invasive fungal disease. The posaconazole IV solution provides an option for these same indications in patients who are unable to receive oral formulations.

Prophylaxis of Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis with Nebulized Lipid Complex Amphotericin B Is Feasible, Well Tolerated and Safe in Children with Acute Leukemia. Results of a Phase II Open Trial

▪ BACKGROUNDAcute leukemia is the most frequent cancer in childhood. The use of dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens has significantly increased the overall survival of acute leukemia during the last years. As a result of more dose-intensive myelosuppressive and immunosuppressive therapies there is a higher risk of systemic fungal infections. Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality (>50%), and therefore measures that effectively prevent IPA are needed. Prophylaxis of IPA with anti-mold azoles is effective, but has adverse systemic effects and important drug interactions with some chemotherapeutic agents (i.e. vincristine). Currently there is no optimal prophylaxis for IPA in pediatric patients so new strategies are needed. Because IPA originates from the inhalation of conidia, a prophylactic approach is the topical administration of antifungals inside the lungs. Aerosolized lipid formulations of amphotericin B could prevent IPA and avoid systemic adverse events and drug interactions. There are no published studies reporting feasibility and safety of inhaled lipidic amphotericins in the pediatric population. PATIENTS AND METHODSThe safety, feasibility and tolerance of nebulized lipid complex amphotericin B (ABCL) was evaluated in a phase II open label single arm trial on the use in pediatric patients (3 to 18 year-old) with acute leukemia during intensive chemotherapy. Nebulized therapy was administered by a PARI eFlow®rapid nebulizer system twice weekly, at 50 mg the first week and then 25 mg during intensive chemotherapy until recovery of neutropenia (3 consecutive absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥1x109/L or one ANC ≥1.5x109/L). Treatment was resumed during neutropenic episodes following subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Serum galactomannan assay was performed twice weekly during neutropenia. High-resolution chest computed tomography was done when there was a clinical suspicion of IPA. Fluconazole was allowed but antifungal drugs with anti-mold activity were not permitted. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01615809. RESULTSThirty-two patients were included, 19 were male (59.4%), median age was of 5.5 years (range 3-16). Twenty-nine patients were diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 3 with acute myeloid leukemia. Among the patients with ALL, 24 had a de novo ALL and 5 a relapsed ALL. A total of 389 administrations of nebulized ABCL were performed, with a median per patient of 13 (range 1-19). All patients tolerated the drug and no patient had to discontinue it due to intolerance or an adverse event. No patient presented a severe adverse event in relation to ABCL. Five patients suffered from mild adverse events (cough, eye discomfort). Nine patients were withdrawn from the study, 2 were referred to another institution to undergo bone marrow transplantation and 7 due to systemic administration of an antifungal agent with anti-mold activity. Three of these patients developed a possible or probable IPA. There were no other cases of IPA. CONCLUSIONSProphylactic nebulizations with ABCL were well tolerated, safe and feasible in children aged 3-18 years diagnosed with acute leukemia. There is a need to perform further studies with a higher number of patients to evaluate the efficacy of this approach. DisclosuresRives:Teva Pharma: Other. Off Label Use: Nebulized Amphotericin-B lipid complex is not approved for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infection in pediatric patients with acute leukemia.

Posaconazole for Primary Antifungal Prophylaxis in AML Patients: A Real Life Single Center Experience and a Comparison with the Historical Cohort

Backgrounds and aimsPrevention and prompt treatment of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients can improve overall survival not only by reducing infection-related mortality but also allowing to comply induction regimens on time.The aim of the study was to estimate efficacy and feasibility of primary antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole (PSZ) in patients affected by acute myeloid leukemia receiving front-line chemotherapy and to optimize our clinical practice.Materials and methodsFrom January 2013 to May 2014, 28 AML patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy and potentially eligible for bone marrow transplantation in our institute received PSZ prophylaxis for IFI. All patients received a fludarabine, cytarabine and idarubicin containing regimen as first line treatment. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of PSZ prophylaxis; to detect factors affecting drug exposure we analyzed each period of hospitalization as a single independent event.PSZ was given at the standard dose of 200 mg for 3 times/day, concurrently with a fat snack or with at least 100 ml of an acidic drink.Because of unpredictable absorption rates PSZ serum levels (TDM) were assessed routinely according to a validated high-performance liquid chromato-graphic (HPLC) method as described.A comparison with an historical cohort with similar features who had received fluconazole (FLC) prophylaxis was made. The use of empirical or targeted antifungal therapies and the incidence of IFI were compared.Results and discussionPSZ showed a good tolerability profile with no serious adverse events clearly related to prophylaxis occurring.A median number of 2 TDM for each period of hospitalization was performed (range 2-5). The achievement of a plasmatic PSZ concentration > 0,7 mcg/mL is considered optimal for prophylaxis efficacy; in 30/47 (64%) episodes of hospitalization and treatment, with at least two TDM, the threshold PSZ serum concentration was reached, with stable plasmatic levels. Median PSZ plasmatic value at first assessment was 0.89 mcg/mL (range 0.1-3.3).Table 1 summarizes patients features and factors that might affect PSZ plasma concentrations. The strongest negative factors affecting PSZ absorption are the discontinuation of prophylaxis and the concomitant assumption of proton pump inhibitors since their negative impact is shown both in univariate and multivariate analysis.No proven IFI were observed in our cohort with only one probable IFI occurring in a patient with refractory disease who did not reach adequate serum PSZ concentration.Table 2 summarizes the comparison with our historical cohort. The risk of experiencing IFI (proven or probable) during AML treatment is significantly higher in the FLC cohort (HR: 9.488, CI: 1,404 - 64,122). Moreover, the use of targeted or empirical antifungal therapies had been significantly higher in FLC cohort (HR: 2.7, CI: 1,212 - 6,050).Our clinical experience confirms the utility and cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PSZ in AML patients receiving intensive treatment.Table 1:Factors affecting PSZ serum concentrationReached plasmatic concentration threshold (%)p(univariate)p(multivariate)All Hospitalizations30/47 (64)--SexMale17/23 (74)0.227-Female13/24 (54)Disease StatusActive Disease13/27 (57)0.0140.156Complete Response17/20 (85)MucositisNone or Grade 125/32 (78)0.0080.228Grade >=25/15 (33)Age<=45 years12/21 (57)0.543->45 years18/26 (69)Concomitant PPINo28/36 (78)0.0010.000Yes2/11 (18)Concomitant RanitidineNo26/42 (62)0.640-No4/5 (80)Concomitant Levofloxacine prophylaxisYes27/39 (69)0.1180.042No3/8 (38)Prophylaxis DiscontinuationNever27/36 (75)0.0090.003At least for 2 dd3/11 (27)Infectious ComplicationsNone8/11 (73)0.722-At least one episode22/36 (61)PSZ Assumption withFat snack5/11 (46)0.1530.150Acidic drink25/35 (71)Table 2:Historical comparisonFCZPSZpAll hospitalizations5447-Median age (range)47 (17-72)47 (19-68)0.560Median ANC <500 days (range)18 (12-35)21 (7-30)0.182Infectious complications (%)43/54 (80%)36/47 (77%)0.643Proven or probable IFI (%)16/54 (30%)1/47 (2%)0.000Empirical or targeted antifungal therapy (%)19/54 (36%)5/47 (11%)0.002 DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Anidulafungin Versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections in High-Risk Liver Transplant Recipients

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a common complication in liver transplant recipients. There are no previous randomized trials of an echinocandin for the prevention of IFIs in solid organ transplant recipients. In a randomized, double-blind trial conducted at University-affiliated transplant centers, 200 high-risk liver transplant recipients (100 patients per group) received either anidulafungin or fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis. Randomization was stratified by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥30 and receipt of a pretransplant antifungal agent. The primary end point was IFI in a modified intent-to-treat analysis. The overall incidence of IFI was similar for the anidulafungin (5.1%) and the fluconazole groups (8.0%) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.19-1.94, p = 0.40). However, anidulafungin prophylaxis was associated with less Aspergillus colonization or infection (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.08), lower breakthrough IFIs among patients who had received pretransplant fluconazole (0% vs. 27%, p = 0.07), and fewer cases of antifungal resistance (no cases vs. 5 cases). Both drugs were well-tolerated. Graft rejection, fungal-free survival, and mortality were similar for both groups. Thus, anidulafungin and fluconazole have similar efficacy for antifungal prophylaxis in most liver transplant recipients. Anidulafungin may be beneficial if the patient has an increased risk for Aspergillus infection or received fluconazole before transplantation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Posaconazole Versus Fluconazole or Itraconazole in the Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections Among Neutropenic Patients in Thailand.

Cost-Effectiveness of Posaconazole Versus Fluconazole or Itraconazole in the Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal Infections Among Neutropenic Patients in Thailand.

Efficacy of Fluconazole Prophylaxis for Invasive Fungal Infection in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants

Efficacy of Fluconazole Prophylaxis for Invasive Fungal Infection in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants

Efficacy and safety of micafungin for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infection during neutropenia in children and adolescents undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic SCT.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of micafungin for the prevention of invasive fungal infection (IFI) during the neutropenic phase of allogeneic hematopoietic SCT (allo-HSCT) in children and adolescents. This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study. Micafungin was administered i.v. at a dose of 1 mg/kg/day (max 50 mg) from the beginning of conditioning until neutrophil engraftment. Treatment success was defined as the absence of proven, probable, possible or suspected IFI through to 4 weeks after therapy. From April 2010 to December 2011, 155 patients were enrolled from 11 institutions in Korea, and 147 patients were analyzed. Of the 147 patients, 121 (82.3%) completed the protocol without premature interruption. Of the 132 patients in whom micafungin efficacy could be evaluated, treatment success was achieved in 119 patients (90.2%). There was no proven fungal infection in any patient. The number of patients with probable, possible and suspected IFI was two, two and nine, respectively. Thirty-five patients (23.8%) experienced 109 adverse events (AEs) possibly related to micafungin. No patients experienced grade IV AEs. Two patients (1.4%) discontinued micafungin administration due to adverse effects. None of the deaths were related to the study drug.

Triazole antifungal agents: practice guidelines of therapeutic drug monitoring and perspectives in treatment optimization

Antifungal triazole agents (fluconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole and posaconazole) are widely used for the management of invasive fungal infections (IFI). These drugs are indicated both for the prophylaxis and treatment of IFI, particularly in candidiasis and aspergillosis, major cause of mortality in immunocompromised patients. Due to a large interindividual pharmacokinetic variability leading to sub-therapeutic or toxic concentrations and to concentration-efficacy and/or -toxicity relationships, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antifungal triazole is fully justified. This review provides an overview of literature based data that confirm the usefulness of such TDM and its level of evidence as well as the practical guidelines for its implementation. In addition, we discuss the interest of new tools to improve the clinical management of IFI, such as genotyping tests optimizing initial voriconazole dosing regimen or the development of a new solid oral tablet of posaconazole improving its bioavailability and limiting absorption disorders.

Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematologic malignancies. 2014 update of the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology.

Invasive fungal infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients, particularly in those with haematological malignancies and recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Difficulties in diagnosing invasive fungal infections and subsequent delays in treatment initiation lead to unfavourable outcomes and emphasise the importance of prophylaxis. Since the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology in 2009, results of 14 additional clinical studies have been published comprising 2,899 patients and initiating this update. Key recommendations for adult patients are as follows: Posaconazole remains the drug of choice during remission-induction chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndrome and allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation with graft versus host disease (AI). In the pre-engraftment period of allogeneic transplantation, several antifungals are appropriate and can be recommended with equal strength: voriconazole (BI), micafungin (BI), fluconazole (BI) and posaconazole (BII). There is poor evidence regarding antifungal prophylaxis in the post-engraftment period of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation if no steroids for treatment of graft versus host disease are required. Aerosolised liposomal amphotericin B inhalation in conjunction with fluconazole can be used in patients with prolonged neutropenia (BII).

Emergence of echinocandin-resistant Candida spp. in a hospital setting: a consequence of 10 years of increasing use of antifungal therapy?

Since their introduction in the 2000s, echinocandin drugs have become widely used for the treatment and prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections and, notably, invasive candidiasis. Although cases of breakthrough candidiasis in patients receiving echinocandins have been reported, clinical failure during echinocandin treatment due to the acquisition of resistance by a normally susceptible Candida spp. isolate is considered rare. To date, no publications have been published correlating the use of echinocandins and the emergence of echinocandin resistance among Candida species. So, our goal is to report an initial analysis of echinocandin use in relation to the emergence of resistant Candida isolates. We report here a single-centre experience of the emergence of eight resistant isolates belonging to normally susceptible Candida species in six patients receiving echinocandins. We describe the context and analyse the use of echinocandins over the previous decade. For seven of these isolates, we identified FKS gene mutations involved in decreased susceptibility. Seven isolates were obtained in 2011, on the heels of a ten-fold increase in caspofungin use over the preceding decade. In contrast, in 2012, the use of echinocandins decreased in our institution by 19.5 % and, in that year, only one Candida-resistant isolate was detected, despite the stable global epidemiology of invasive candidaemia. This work underlines the necessity of improving the prescription of antifungal drugs. Improvement in the monitoring of strain susceptibility should also be considered in order to better detect the emergence of resistant or non-susceptible yeast strains.

Adrenocortical insufficiency is not a problem in preterm infants treated with antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole

Fluconazole prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections is a cornerstone of neonatal care, but in vitro studies have shown that it inhibits corticosteroid production. This study assessed whether preterm infants demonstrated an association between fluconazole administration, and its duration, and symptoms of adrenocortical insufficiency. We compared two groups who were treated before and after we introduced the use of fluconazole to our neonatal intensive care unit. Infants with a gestational age of ≤27weeks or with a birth weight of ≤750g were considered for the retrospective analysis. In order to assess whether the duration of prophylaxis was related to adrenocortical insufficiency, regression models were performed in all preterm infants in the fluconazole group. The fluconazole group (n=37) and nonfluconazole group (n=41) were compared. No differences were found in the percentage of infants with symptoms of adrenocortical insufficiency, such as hypotension or need of vasopressor therapy. The incidence of hypotension and the use of vasopressor therapy were not related to duration of fluconazole prophylaxis. Fluconazole and it duration were not associated with the incidence of symptoms related to adrenocortical insufficiency. Further prospective trials are needed to better define the relationship between fluconazole and adrenocortical insufficiency.

Fungal Prophylaxis in Neonates

Fungemia is a serious problem within neonatal intensive care units around the world. Premature infants are at high risk for this complication, which is often fatal. Prophylaxis for invasive fungal infection has been practiced worldwide in different settings and with various patient groups. Both oral and intravenous drugs have been used with some success. In the population of preterm infants, oral nystatin, intravenous fluconazole, and intravenous amphotericin B have all been cited as possible drugs for prophylactic use. Intravenous fluconazole has emerged as the best choice for chemoprophylaxis in premature infants.

Antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: what is the role of voriconazole?

Voriconazole is given a provisional A1 rating in the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL)3 guidelines as primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. The rationale for this rating is outlined in a recent review by Hicheri et al. [1]. Interestingly, the main argument supporting the new role of voriconazole in primary prophylaxis is based on the results of one recently published study [2]. In this study, Marks and colleagues demonstrated that voriconazole was superior to itraconazole as antifungal prophylaxis after allogeneic HSCT based on differences in the primary composite endpoint [115/234 (49.1 %) vs. 88/256 (34.5 %), respectively] [2]. However, three considerations should be taken into account when interpreting these results. First, the composite endpoint of the study included not only survival at day 180 post-transplant as well as proven or probable IFI during that same period, but also discontinuation of the study drug for [14 days during the 100-day prophylactic period. No differences were found between the treatment arms in terms of general survival and occurrence of IFI. The only part of the composite endpoint where voriconazole proved to be superior to itraconazole was discontinuation of the study drug—and the results and conclusions were driven by that difference only. In this context it is of interest that even in the voriconazole arm the number of patients who reached sufficient duration of prophylaxis was low (54.3 %; 127/234), but still significantly higher than that in the itraconazole arm (40 %; 102/255). Interestingly, both antifungals were similar for side effect scores. When taking into account both (1) the open label design of the study (i.e., investigators who discontinued antifungals were not blinded to the study drugs) and (2) the fact that discontinuation of study drugs was completely up to the discretion of the treating physician and no reasons for discontinuation were given in the Results section of the paper, we suggest that the conclusion drawn by the authors regarding the superiority of voriconazole compared to itraconazole can, based on these results, not be drawn. Second, the incidence of IFI was very low—1.3 % (3/ 234) in the voriconazole arm and 2.1 % (5/255) in the itraconazole arm. All but two cases of IFIs did not meet the criteria of breakthrough infection as they occurred[40 days after discontinuation of the study drug. In a previous comparable study [3], occurrence of breakthrough IFI in patients receiving itraconazole prophylaxis was consistently [6 % which is threefold higher than that reported by Marks and colleagues. One reason for the low incidence may have been that galactomannan monitoring, which has shown to have a significant impact on the prevalence of invasive mould infection (IMI), was not part of the study design [4]. It may be argued that with a higher IFI incidence significant differences might have been found between voriconazole and itraconazole with respect to the rates of IMI. Third, therapeutic drug monitoring was performed only in a subset of the study cohort. Not surprisingly, the standard oral 200 mg twice-daily voriconazole dosage used in the study led to insufficient trough concentrations in the vast majority of patients; 62 % even had trough levels of \1.0 mg/L. Systematic therapeutic drug monitoring may M. Hoenigl (&) K. Seeber R. Krause Section of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria e-mail: martin.hoenigl@medunigraz.at

High weekly doses of liposomal amphotericin B as secondary prophylaxis after cerebral aspergillosis in a paediatric patient

A paediatric patient treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia developed cerebral abscesses caused by Aspergillus fumigatus. After surgical draining voriconazole treatment was started. The patient developed a Steven–Johnson syndrome and treatment was switched to L-AmB. The patient developed no new fungal lesions and L-AmB treatment was continued until the end of the therapy. Complete remission was achieved without neurological consequences.High dose L-AmB represents an alternative for secondary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients intolerant to azoles.

Meeting the Challenge of Invasive Fungal Infections: Part 2

The 23rd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2013 Berlin, Germany, 27-30 April 2013. This second and final installment of the report on the 23rd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases follows on from Part 1, published in the September 2013 (volume 8, issue 9) issue of Future Microbiology. Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a well-recognized complication in immunocompromised patients, with neutropenic patients with leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients at especially high risk. Early diagnosis of IFIs is essential, since delaying the initiation of adequate antifungal therapy increases the risk of death. The rapid diagnosis, and effective treatment and prophylaxis of IFIs were among the topics discussed during the 2013 conference of the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2013).