Lena M Biehl1, J Janne Vehreschild1, Blasius Liss2, Bernd Franke2, Birgid Markiefka3, Thorsten Persigehl4, Vanessa Bücker2, Hilmar Wisplinghoff5, Christof Scheid2, Oliver A Cornely6, Maria J G T Vehreschild7. 1. Department I of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany German Centre for Infection Research, partner site Bonn-Cologne, Germany. 2. Department I of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Institute for Pathology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 5. Institute for Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Hygiene, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 6. Department I of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany German Centre for Infection Research, partner site Bonn-Cologne, Germany Center for Integrated Oncology, CIO KölnBonn, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases (CECAD), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. Department I of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany German Centre for Infection Research, partner site Bonn-Cologne, Germany maria.vehreschild@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended for haematological patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Incidence, optimal therapeutic management and outcome of breakthrough IFIs (bIFIs) are largely unknown. METHODS: To assess bIFI incidence, treatment and outcomes, data on patients undergoing AML remission-induction and consolidation chemotherapy and from allogeneic HSCT recipients on antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole, micafungin or posaconazole were extracted from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut). bIFIs were classified according to revised EORTC/MSG criteria. RESULTS: From January 2004 to April 2013, 250 AML patients with 329 hospitalizations and 409 HSCT patients with 496 hospitalizations were identified. In AML patients, there were 16 (6.4%) proven or probable bIFIs and 44 (17.6%) possible bIFIs. In HSCT patients, there were 14 (3.4%) proven or probable bIFIs and 37 (9.0%) possible bIFIs. Proven cases included five candidaemias, two mucormycoses, three aspergilloses and one fusariosis. The most frequent choice for bIFI treatment was liposomal amphotericin B in AML patients (21/60; 35.0%) and continuation of posaconazole prophylaxis in HSCT patients (16/51; 31.4%). In HSCT recipients, survival on day 365 was significantly lower in bIFI patients (AML, 63.3% versus 70.0%; P = 0.297; HSCT, 49.0% versus 66.8%; P = 0.012). Comparison of continuation of prophylaxis versus switch of antifungal class as first-line treatment showed no significant difference regarding response to treatment and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of bIFIs observed in our population were comparable to previous data. There was no clear shift towards rare species, as previously reported. A high variety of treatment approaches was observed.
OBJECTIVES: Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended for haematological patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Incidence, optimal therapeutic management and outcome of breakthrough IFIs (bIFIs) are largely unknown. METHODS: To assess bIFI incidence, treatment and outcomes, data on patients undergoing AML remission-induction and consolidation chemotherapy and from allogeneic HSCT recipients on antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole, micafungin or posaconazole were extracted from the Cologne Cohort of NeutropenicPatients (CoCoNut). bIFIs were classified according to revised EORTC/MSG criteria. RESULTS: From January 2004 to April 2013, 250 AMLpatients with 329 hospitalizations and 409 HSCT patients with 496 hospitalizations were identified. In AMLpatients, there were 16 (6.4%) proven or probable bIFIs and 44 (17.6%) possible bIFIs. In HSCT patients, there were 14 (3.4%) proven or probable bIFIs and 37 (9.0%) possible bIFIs. Proven cases included five candidaemias, two mucormycoses, three aspergilloses and one fusariosis. The most frequent choice for bIFI treatment was liposomal amphotericin B in AMLpatients (21/60; 35.0%) and continuation of posaconazole prophylaxis in HSCT patients (16/51; 31.4%). In HSCT recipients, survival on day 365 was significantly lower in bIFI patients (AML, 63.3% versus 70.0%; P = 0.297; HSCT, 49.0% versus 66.8%; P = 0.012). Comparison of continuation of prophylaxis versus switch of antifungal class as first-line treatment showed no significant difference regarding response to treatment and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of bIFIs observed in our population were comparable to previous data. There was no clear shift towards rare species, as previously reported. A high variety of treatment approaches was observed.
Authors: Prajwal Boddu; Pei-Ling Chen; Priyadharsini Nagarajan; Victor G Prieto; Alex Won; Mark Chambers; Steven Kornblau Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol Date: 2017-09-12
Authors: A P Douglas; K A Thursky; L J Worth; E Drummond; A Hogg; R J Hicks; M A Slavin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anastasia Wasylyshyn; Kathleen A Linder; Caroline G Castillo; Shiwei Zhou; Carol A Kauffman; Marisa H Miceli Journal: Mycopathologia Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 2.574
Authors: Caitlin R Rausch; Courtney D DiNardo; Abhishek Maiti; Nadya J Jammal; Tapan M Kadia; Kayleigh R Marx; Gautam Borthakur; J Michael Savoy; Naveen Pemmaraju; Adam J DiPippo; Naval G Daver; Serena M Chew; Koji Sasaki; Ghayas C Issa; Nicholas J Short; Koichi Takahashi; Maro N Ohanian; Jing Ning; Lianchun Xiao; Yesid Alvarado; Dimitrios P Kontoyiannis; Farhad Ravandi; Hagop M Kantarjian; Marina Y Konopleva Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 6.921