Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically-ill patients

Choosing Optimal Antifungal Agents To Prevent Fungal Infections in Nonneutropenic Critically Ill Patients: Trial Sequential Analysis, Network Meta-analysis, and Pharmacoeconomic Analysis

The use of antifungal interventions in critically ill patients prior to invasive fungal infection (IFI) being microbiologically confirmed and the preferred drug are still controversial. A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared untargeted antifungal treatments applied to nonneutropenic critically ill patients. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proven IFI rates. A random-effects model was used with trial sequential analyses (TSA), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to obtain indirect evidence, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model was completed from the patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. In total, 19 RCTs involving 2,556 patients (7 interventions) were included. Untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly decrease the incidence of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 0.70 to 1.14), but it did reduce the incidence of proven IFI (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.29 to 0.71) relative to placebo/no intervention. The TSA showed that there was sufficient evidence supporting these findings. In the NMA, the only significant difference found for both primary outcomes was between fluconazole and placebo/no intervention in preventing proven IFI (OR = 0.35, 95%CI = 0.19 to 0.65). Based on drug and hospital costs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year saved for fluconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin relative to placebo/no intervention corresponded to US$889, US$9,994, and US$10,351, respectively. Untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced proven IFI rates in nonneutropenic critically ill patients but with no mortality benefits relative to placebo/no intervention. Among the well-tolerated antifungals, fluconazole remains the only one that is effective for IFI prevention and significantly cheaper than echinocandins.

Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections are important causes of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. Early institution of antifungal therapy is pivotal for mortality reduction. Starting a targeted antifungal therapy after culture positivity and fungi identification requires a long time. Therefore, alternative strategies (globally defined as 'untargeted antifungal treatments') for antifungal therapy institution in patients without proven microbiological evidence of fungal infections have been discussed by international guidelines. This review was originally published in 2006 and updated in 2016. This updated review provides additional evidence for the clinician dealing with suspicion of fungal infection in critically ill, non-neutropenic patients, taking into account recent findings in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) compared to placebo or no antifungal or any other antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) in non-neutropenic, critically ill adults and children. We assessed effectiveness in terms of total (all-cause) mortality and incidence of proven invasive fungal infections as primary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), and EMBASE (OVID). We also searched reference lists of identified studies and major reviews, abstracts of conference proceedings, scientific meetings and clinical trials registries. We contacted experts in the field, study authors and pharmaceutical companies as part of the search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (irrespective of language or publication status) comparing the use of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) to placebo, no antifungal, or another antifungal agent in non-neutropenic critically ill participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently applied selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion. We synthesized data using the random-effects model and expressed the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies (total of 2761 participants). Of those 22 studies, 12 were included in the original published review and 10 were newly identified. Eleven trials compared the use of fluconazole to placebo or no antifungal treatment. Three trials compared ketoconazole versus placebo. One trial compared anidulafungin with placebo. One trial compared caspofungin to placebo. Two trials compared micafungin to placebo. One trial compared amphotericin B to placebo. Two trials compared nystatin to placebo and one trial compared the effect of clotrimazole, ketoconazole, nystatin and no treatment. We found two new ongoing studies and four new studies awaiting classification. The RCTs included participants of both genders with wide age range, severity of critical illness and clinical characteristics. Funding sources from pharmaceutical companies were reported in 11 trials and one trial reported funding from a government agency. Most of the studies had an overall unclear risk of bias for key domains of this review (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data). Two studies had a high risk of bias for key domains. Regarding the other domains (blinding of participants and personnel, outcome assessment, selective reporting, other bias), most of the studies had a low or unclear risk but four studies had a high risk of bias.There was moderate grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly reduce or increase total (all-cause) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, P value = 0.36; participants = 2374; studies = 19). With regard to the outcome of proven invasive fungal infection, there was low grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced the risk (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, P value = 0.0001; participants = 2024; studies = 17). The risk of fungal colonization was significantly reduced (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, P value = 0.03; participants = 1030; studies = 12) but the quality of evidence was low. There was no difference in the risk of developing superficial fungal infection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.29, P value = 0.24; participants = 662; studies = 5; low grade of evidence) or in adverse events requiring cessation of treatment between the untargeted treatment group and the other group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P value = 0.51; participants = 1691; studies = 11; low quality of evidence). The quality of evidence for the outcome of total (all-cause) mortality was moderate due to limitations in study design. The quality of evidence for the outcome of invasive fungal infection, superficial fungal infection, fungal colonization and adverse events requiring cessation of therapy was low due to limitations in study design, non-optimal total population size, risk of publication bias, and heterogeneity across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that the use of untargeted antifungal treatment is not associated with a significant reduction in total (all-cause) mortality among critically ill, non-neutropenic adults and children compared to no antifungal treatment or placebo. The untargeted antifungal treatment may be associated with a reduction of invasive fungal infections but the quality of evidence is low, and both the heterogeneity and risk of publication bias is high.Further high-quality RCTs are needed to improve the strength of the evidence, especially for more recent and less studied drugs (e.g. echinocandins). Future trials should adopt standardized definitions for microbiological outcomes (e.g. invasive fungal infection, colonization) to reduce heterogeneity. Emergence of resistance to antifungal drugs should be considered as outcome in studies investigating the effects of untargeted antifungal treatment to balance risks and benefit.

Management of infections in cirrhotic patients: report of a consensus conference

The statements produced by the consensus conference on infection in end-stage liver disease promoted by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver, are here reported. The topics of epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of infections in patient with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis were reviewed by a scientific board of experts who proposed 26 statements that were graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation, and approved by an independent jury. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. By systematic literature search of available evidence, comparison and discussion of expert opinions, pertinent statements answering specific questions were presented and approved. Short comments were added to explain the basis for grading evidence particularly on case of controversial areas.

Italian guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients

Use of various induction regimens, of novel immunosuppressive agents, and of newer prophylactic strategies continues to change the pattern of infections among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Although invasive fungal infections (IFIs) occur at a lower incidence than bacterial and viral infections in this population, they remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In March 2008, a panel of Italian experts on fungal infections and organ transplantation convened in Castel Gandolfo (Rome) to develop consensus guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of IFIs among SOT recipients. We discussed the definitions, microbiological and radiological diagnoses, prophylaxis, empirical treatment, and therapy of established disease. Throughout the consensus document, recommendations as clinical guidelines were rated according to the standard scoring system of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the United Stated Public Health Service.

Risk of resistance associated with fluconazole prophylaxis: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown that fluconazole prophylaxis reduces the risk of fungal colonization and of invasive fungal infection in high-risk patients with minimal toxicity. This systematic review was designed to estimate the risk of emergence of colonization and infection either with azole susceptible-dose dependent or with resistant strains.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration database and our own files for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of fluconazole on the incidence of fluconazole-resistant strains.

RESULTS

This systematic review of randomized clinical trials shows that fluconazole prophylaxis increases the risk for colonization with fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent or with resistant yeasts, the percentage of non-albicans Candida isolates and the percentage of fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent or resistant fungal isolates. Fluconazole prophylaxis did not significantly affect the risk of invasive disease with fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent or resistant fungi. The sample size was too small to assess the effect of fluconazole prophylaxis on the risk for breakthrough infections with non-albicans Candida.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from randomized trials suggests that fluconazole prophylaxis increases the risk for colonization with fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent or with resistant fungi, but does not significantly affect the risk for invasive infections with fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent or with resistant fungi. The risk for breakthrough infections remains a concern and needs to be addressed in large prospective studies.

Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections, important causes of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients, may be preventable with the prophylactic administration of antifungal agents.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically identify and summarize the effects of antifungal prophylaxis in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients on all-cause mortality and the incidence of invasive fungal infections.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2 September 2005), and EMBASE (1980 to week 36, 2005). We also handsearched reference lists, abstracts of conference proceedings and scientific meetings (1998 to 2004), and contacted authors of included studies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in all languages comparing the prophylactic use of any antifungal agent or regimen with placebo, no antifungal, or another antifungal agent or regimen in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted data using an intention-to-treat approach. We resolved differences by discussion. We synthesized data using the random effects model and expressed results as relative risk with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 unique trials (eight comparing fluconazole and four ketoconazole with no antifungal or a nonabsorbable agent) involving 1606 randomized patients. For both outcomes of total mortality and invasive fungal infections, almost all trials of fluconazole and ketoconazole separately showed a non-significant risk reduction with prophylaxis. When combined, fluconazole/ketoconazole reduced total mortality by about 25% (relative risk 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.97) and invasive fungal infections by about 50% (relative risk 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.68). We identified no significant increase in the incidence of infection or colonization with the azole-resistant fungal pathogens Candida glabrata or C. krusei, although the confidence intervals of the summary effect measures were wide. Adverse effects were not more common amongst patients receiving prophylaxis. Results across all trials were homogeneous despite considerable heterogeneity in clinical and methodological characteristics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with fluconazole or ketoconazole in critically ill patients reduces invasive fungal infections by one half and total mortality by one quarter. Although no significant increase in azole-resistant Candida species associated with prophylaxis was demonstrated, trials were not powered to exclude such an effect. In patients at increased risk of invasive fungal infections, antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole should be considered.