Literature DB >> 8151325

Prediction of systemic fungal infection in allogeneic marrow recipients: impact of amphotericin prophylaxis in high-risk patients.

M R O'Donnell1, G M Schmidt, B R Tegtmeier, C Faucett, J L Fahey, J Ito, A Nademanee, J Niland, P Parker, E P Smith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To identify risk factors that might predict for systemic fungal infections in marrow transplant recipients within the first 100 days and to assess the efficacy of low-dose amphotericin B used as prophylaxis for candidemia and infection with invasive Aspergillus species in patients at risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of transplant outcomes for 331 allogeneic marrow recipients transplanted between 1983 and 1989 was performed to identify patients who might be at increased risk of fungal infection. Factors analyzed included disease, remission status, transplant regimen, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, duration of neutropenia, and development of GVHD. A trial of low-dose amphotericin (5 to 10 mg/d) begun on day +1 and continuing for 2 to 3 months posttransplant was begun in 1987 to evaluate its utility in reducing systemic mycoses.
RESULTS: There were 18 episodes of candidemia and 18 systemic mycoses documented by blood or tissue culture or by biopsy. The initiation of high-dose (0.5 to 1 mg/kg/d) corticosteroids early as a component of GVHD prophylaxis in 1986 was identified as the most important risk factor for fungal infections, with a sixfold increase in infections as compared with the previous GVHD regimen (P < .0001); this was despite a significant decrease in the incidence of grade II to IV GVHD (7% v 43%; P = .0001). Low-dose amphotericin B initiated before the start of high-dose corticosteroid GVHD prophylaxis reduced the incidence of fungal infections from 30% to 9% (P = .01) without renal toxicity. Cyclosporine levels were lower in the patients who received amphotericin, leading to an increase in the rate of GVHD to 19% (P = .02). Controlling for GVHD prophylaxis, prolonged neutropenia (P = .00), and grade II to IV GVHD (P = .01) were also identified as risk factors for fungal infection.
CONCLUSION: Amphotericin B can be used in low doses as prophylaxis for fungal infections early in the posttransplant course. However, cyclosporine doses need to be monitored to maintain target levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8151325     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.4.827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  21 in total

Review 1.  Antifungal prophylaxis during neutropenia and immunodeficiency.

Authors:  O Lortholary; B Dupont
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Emerging Issues in Nosocomial Fungal Infections.

Authors: 
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.725

Review 3.  Aspergillus infections in transplant recipients.

Authors:  Nina Singh; David L Paterson
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 4.  Corticosteroid-induced adverse events in adults: frequency, screening and prevention.

Authors:  Laurence Fardet; Abdulrhaman Kassar; Jean Cabane; Antoine Flahault
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis due to Emericella nidulans var. echinulata, successfully cured by voriconazole and micafungin.

Authors:  Jin Yu; Xiangdong Mu; Ruoyu Li
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Amphotericin B prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a single center experience from 1980 to 1995.

Authors:  A De Laurenzi; A Matteocci; A Lanti; L Pescador; F Blandino; C Papetti
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.553

7.  Costs of antifungal prophylaxis after bone marrow transplantation. A model comparing oral fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin and oral polyenes as prophylaxis against oropharyngeal infections.

Authors:  A Stewart; R Powles; M Hewetson; J Antrum; C Richardson; J Mehta
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Fungal infections in patients with neutropenia: challenges in prophylaxis and treatment.

Authors:  R Herbrecht; S Neuville; V Letscher-Bru; S Natarajan-Amé; O Lortholary
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.923

9.  Sordarins: in vitro activities of new antifungal derivatives against pathogenic yeasts, Pneumocystis carinii, and filamentous fungi.

Authors:  E Herreros; C M Martinez; M J Almela; M S Marriott; F G De Las Heras; D Gargallo-Viola
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Assessment of the significance of respiratory culture of Aspergillus in the non-neutropenic patient. A critique of published diagnostic criteria.

Authors:  R C Barton; R P Hobson; H McLoughlin; A Morris; B Datta
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.267

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.