Comparison of fluconazole and posaconazole for fungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients with hematological malignity

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 01, 1 - 6, 01.03.2014

Selçuk Kaya Mehmet Sönmez İftihar Köksal Eda Gençalioğlu Mustafa Yılmaz Gürdal Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs.02.2014.01.0115

Cited By: 2

Öz

Objective: To compare the frequency of fungal infection and mortality rates in patients with hematological malignity and receiving either flucanazole (FLU) or posaconazole (POS) prophylaxis. Methods: This retrospective, observational study investigated fungal prophylaxis in patients with a high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and diagnosed with hematological malignity at our hospital hematology clinic between 01.01.2011 and 01.01.2013. FLU (n=70) was the prophylactic regimen between 2011 and 2012 which was replaced by POS (n=35) in the following period. The incidence and mortality rates of IFIs developing in the two periods were compared. Results: The incidence of IFI in patients administered FLU prophylaxis was 22/70 (31%), compared to 13/35 (37%) in the patients receiving POS. Incidence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in the FLU group was 21/70 (31%), compared to 9/35 (26%) in the POS group. The mortality rate in the group receiving FLU prophylaxis was 17 (24%), compared to 4 (11%) in the POS group. The difference was attributed to causes other than fungal infection. Results of subgroup analysis performed for AML were similar to the general findings in terms of both incidences of fungal infection and of mortality levels. In multivariate analysis, mean duration of neutropenia was correlated with prophylaxis failure. Conclusion: We conclude that both agents can be successfully used in fungal infection prophylaxis for patients at high risk for IFI.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fungal prophylaxis, invasive fungal infections, mortality

Comparison of fluconazole and posaconazole for fungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients with hematological malignity

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada hematolojik malignitesi olan ve flukonazol (FLU) veya posakonazol (POS) proflaksisi uygulanan hastalarda görülen fungal enfeksiyon sıklığı ve mortalite oranları karşılaşıldı. Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif, gözlemsel çalışmada 01 Ocak 2011-01 Ocak 2013 tarihleri arasında hastanemiz hematoloji kliniğinde hematolojik malignite tanısıyla izlenmekte olan hastalara verilen antifungal profilaksiler değerlendirildi. Birer yıllık 2 dönemin ilkinde, hastalara proflaktik olarak FLU, 2.dönemde ise POS uygulandı. Bulgular: FLU proflaksisi alan hastalarda görülen fungal enfeksiyon sıklığı 22/70 (31%) iken, POS alan hastalarda 13/35 (37%) olduğu görüldü. İnvaziv pulmoner aspergilloz (İPA) görülme sıklığı FLU kolunda 21/70 (31%) bulunurken, POS kolunda bu oran 9/35 (%26) bulundu. FLU proflaksisi alan gruptan 17 hasta öldü (%24), POS alan gruptan ise 4 (%11) hasta öldü. Bu farkın fungal enfeksiyon dışı nedenlerden kaynaklandığı düşünüldü. AML için yapılan subgrup analizinde fungal enfeksiyon sıklığı ve mortalite oranları bakımından sonuçlar, genel sonuçlarla benzerdi. Çoklu varyasyon analizinde hastalardaki ortalama nötropeni süresinin uzunluğuyla fungal proflaksi başarısızlığı arasında ilişki bulundu.Sonuç: Her iki ajanın da yüksek riskli hastalardaki fungal enfeksiyon proflaksisinde başarıyla kullanılabileceği sonucuna varıldı

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fungal proflaksi, invaziv fungal enfeksiyonlar, mortalite

Kaynakça

• Pagano L, Caira M, Candoni A, et al. Invasive aspergillosis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia:SEIFEM-2008 registry study. Haematologica 2010;95:644-650.
• Ruping MJ, Vehreschild JJ, Cornely OA. Patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections: when and how to treat. Drugs 2008;68:1941-1962.
• Cornely OA, Aversa F, Cook P, et al. Evaluating the role of prophylaxis in the management of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancy. Eur J Hematol 2011;87:289-301.
• Ping B, Zhu Y, Gao Y, et al. Second-versus first-generation azoles for antifungal prophylaxis in hematology patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Hematol 2013;92:831-839.
• Döring M, Müller C, Johann PD, et al. Analysis of posacon- azole as oral antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric patients un- der 12 years of age following allogeneic stem cell transplan- tation. BMC Infect Dis 2012;19:263.
• Sánchez-Ortega I, Patiño B, Arnan M, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of primary antifungal prophylaxis withposacon- azole vs itraconazole in allogeneic blood and marrow trans- plantation. Bone Marrow Transplan 2011; 6:733-739.
• Marchetti O, Lamoth F, Mikulska M, et al. European Confer- ence on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL) Laboratory Working Groups. ECIL recommendations for the use of biological markers for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases in leu- kemic patients and hematopoietic SCT recipients. Bone Mar- row Transplant 2012;47:846-854.
• De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infec- tions Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/ MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:1813-1821.
• Mattiuzzi GN, Alvarado G, Giles FJ, et al. Open-label, ran- domized comparison of itraconazole versus caspofungin for prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies. Anti- microb Agents Chemother 2006;50:143-147.
• Penack O, Schwartz S, Martus P, et al. Low-dose liposomal amphotericin B in the prevention of invasive fungal infections in patients with prolonged neutropenia: results from a ran- domized, single-center trial. Ann Oncol 2006;17:1306-1312.
• Vázquez L, Carreras E, Serrano D, et al. Antifungal prophy- laxis in the haematological patient: a practical approach. Rev Esp Quimioter 2012;25:299-304.
• Cornely OA, Aversa F, Cook P, et al. Evaluating the role of prophylaxis in the management of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancy. Eur J Hematol 2011;87:289-301.
• Salavert M, Jarque I. [Is micafungin useful in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease in hematological patients?]. En- ferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2011; 29 Suppl 2:43-49.
• Wang J, Zhan P, Zhou R, et al. Prophylaxis with itracon- azole is more effective than prophylaxis with fluconazole in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Med Oncol 2010;27:1082-1088.
• Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007;356:348-359.
• Shen Y, Huang XJ, Wang JX, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluco- nazole as invasive fungal infection prophylaxis in China: a multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Int J Clin Phar- macol Ther 2013; 51:738-745.
• Bertz H, Drognitz K, Lübbert M. No difference between posaconazole and fluconazole antifungal prophylaxis and mycological diagnostics except costs in patients undergoing AML chemotherapy: a 1-year “real-life” evaluation. Ann He- matol 2013;93:165-167.