The Prophylactic Effect of Itraconazole Capsules and Fluconazole Capsules for Systemic Fungal Infections in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Japanese Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Study

Efficacy of Intravenous Itraconazole Versus Liposomal Amphotericin B as Empirical Antifungal Therapy in Hematological Malignancy with Persistent Fever and Neutropenia: Study Protocol for a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial

Febrile neutropenia, a serious complication that can occur during the treatment of hematological malignancies, can sometimes be fatal owing to fungal infection. Prospective randomized trials indicated the utility of liposomal amphotericin B or caspofungin as an empirical antifungal therapy. Itraconazole, a broad-spectrum tri azole antifungal agent, is poorly absorbed in the intestines after oral absorption and makes it difficult to achieve a stable serum drug concentration. Therefore, an intravenous formulation might offer a potentially safer and more effective alternative. To compare the efficacy and safety of empirical antifungal therapy, patients will be randomly assigned to either the liposomal amphotericin B 3.0 mg/kg once daily group or the intravenous itraconazole 200 mg dose group with five stratification factors (disease risk, previous antifungal prophylaxis, age, sex, and institute). The primary endpoint will be overall favorable response, comprising five secondary endpoints: successful treatment of baseline infection by the end of the treatment; absence of breakthrough infection; no discontinuation of the antifungal treatment due to drug-related toxicity; fever resolution during neutropenia; and 7-day survival after termination of the antifungal treatment. The target sample size of 850 subjects is sufficient to prove the non inferiority of itraconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%, one sided significance level of 5%, and power of 90%.

Network meta-analysis of triazole, polyene, and echinocandin antifungal agents in invasive fungal infection prophylaxis in patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Triazole, polyene, and echinocandin antifungal agents are extensively used to treat invasive fungal infections (IFIs); however, the optimal prophylaxis option is not clear. This study aimed to determine the optimal agent against IFIs for patients with hematological malignancies.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of triazole, polyene, and echinocandin antifungal agents with each other or placebo for IFIs in patients with hematological malignancies were searched. This Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed for all agents.

RESULTS

The network meta-analyses showed that all triazoles, amphotericin B, and caspofungin, but not micafungin, reduced IFIs. Posaconazole was superior to fluconazole [odds ratio (OR), 0.30; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.12-0.60], itraconazole (OR, 0.40; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.85), and amphotericin B (OR, 4.97; 95% CrI, 1.73-11.35). It also reduced all-cause mortality compared with fluconazole (OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.08-0.96) and itraconazole (OR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.07-0.94), and reduced the risk of adverse events compared with fluconazole (OR, 0.02; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.03), itraconazole (OR, 0.01; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.02), posaconazole (OR, 0.02; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.03), voriconazole (OR, 0.005; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 0.01), amphotericin B (OR, 0.004; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.01), and caspofungin (OR, 0.05; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.42) despite no significant difference in the need for empirical treatment and the proportion of successful treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Posaconazole might be an optimal prophylaxis agent because it reduced IFIs, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, despite no difference in the need for empirical treatment and the proportion of successful treatment.

Comparison of Antifungal Prophylaxis Drugs in Patients With Hematological Disease or Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Several antifungal drugs are available for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and adverse effects of antifungal agents using an integrated comparison.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials were searched to collect all relevant evidence published in randomized clinical trials that assessed antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease. Sources were search from inception up to October 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared any antifungal agent with a placebo, no antifungal agent, or another antifungal agent among patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT were included. Of 39 709 studies identified, 69 met the criteria for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The outcome from each study was estimated using the relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. The reliability and validity of the networks were estimated by addressing inconsistencies in the evidence from comparative studies of different treatments. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to February 2020. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) guideline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and mortality. The secondary outcomes were fungal infections, proven IFIs, invasive candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, fungi-related death, and withdrawal owing to adverse effects of the drug.

RESULTS

We identified 69 randomized clinical trials that reported comparisons of 12 treatments with at total of 14 789 patients. Posaconazole was the treatment associated with the best probability of success against IFIs (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 86.7%; mean rank, 2.5). Posaconazole treatment was associated with a significant reduction in IFIs (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) and invasive aspergillosis (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85) compared with placebo. Voriconazole was associated with a significant reduction in invasive candidiasis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.26) compared with placebo. However, posaconazole was associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal because of the adverse effects of the drug (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 17.5%; mean rank, 9.2). In subgroup analyses considering efficacy and tolerance, voriconazole might be the best choice for patients undergoing HSCT, especially allogenic HSCT; however, posaconazole was ranked as the best choice for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that voriconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients undergoing HSCT, and posaconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Primary Fungal Prophylaxis in Hematological Malignancy: a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several new antifungal agents have become available for primary fungal prophylaxis of neutropenia fever in hematological malignancy patients. Our aim was to synthesize all evidence on efficacy and enable an integrated comparison of all current treatments. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publicly available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT). We searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the www.ClinicalTrials.gov website. In total, 54 RCTs were identified, including 13 treatment options. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis. Relative risk (RR) was adopted. Posaconazole was ranked highest in effectiveness for primary prophylaxis, being the most favorable in terms of (i) the RR for reduction of invasive fungal infection (0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.36) and (ii) the probability of being the best option (94% of the cumulative ranking). Posaconazole also demonstrated its efficacy in preventing invasive aspergillosis and proven fungal infections, with RR of 0.13 (CI, 0.03 to 0.65) and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.38), respectively. However, there was no significant difference among all of the antifungal agents in all-cause mortality and overall adverse events. Our network meta-analysis provided an integrated overview of the relative efficacy of all available treatment options for primary fungal prophylaxis for neutropenic fever in hematological malignancy patients under myelosuppressive chemotherapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation. On the basis of this analysis, posaconazole seems to be the most effective prophylaxis option until additional data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials become available.

Network Meta-analysis and Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Fluconazole, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole in Invasive Fungal Infection Prophylaxis

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with high mortality rates and large economic burdens. Triazole prophylaxis is used for at-risk patients with hematological malignancies or stem cell transplants. We evaluated both the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of triazole prophylaxis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole capsule and solution, posaconazole, and voriconazole was conducted. The outcomes of interest included the incidences of IFIs and deaths. This was coupled with a cost-effectiveness analysis from patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Probabilities of transitions between health states were derived from the NMA. Resource use and costs were obtained from the Singapore health care institution. Data on 5,505 participants in 21 RCTs were included. Other than itraconazole capsule, all triazole antifungals were effective in reducing IFIs. Posaconazole was better than fluconazole (odds ratio [OR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.73]) and itraconazole capsule (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.97]), but not voriconazole (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.43 to 4.01]), in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole significantly reduced all-cause deaths, compared to placebo, fluconazole, and itraconazole solution (OR, 0.49 to 0.54 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for itraconazole solution was lower than that for posaconazole (Singapore dollars [SGD] 12,546 versus SGD 26,817 per IFI avoided and SGD 5,844 versus SGD 12,423 per LY saved) for transplant patients. For leukemia patients, itraconazole solution was the dominant strategy. Voriconazole was dominated by posaconazole. All triazole antifungals except itraconazole capsule were effective in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole was more efficacious in reducing IFIs and all-cause deaths than were fluconazole and itraconazole. Both itraconazole solution and posaconazole were cost-effective in the Singapore health care setting.

Guideline for primary antifungal prophylaxis for pediatric patients with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

This guideline provides clinicians with evidence-based recommendations on the use of antifungal prophylaxis in children with cancer and undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Recommendations are divided into: (1) allogeneic HSCT (2) autologous HSCT (3) acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome and (4) patients with malignancy and neutropenia for >7 days. A systematic review was conducted and evidence summaries compiled. The quality of evidence and strength of each recommendation was determined using GRADE. Implementation of these recommendations will require adaptation to local context. The contribution of this guideline in the prevention of invasive fungal infections requires prospective evaluation.

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis to prevent invasive fungal diseases in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background:

Objectives were to compare systemic mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

Methods:

We searched OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1948-August 2011) and EMBASE (1980-August 2011). Randomised controlled trials of mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer or HSCT patients were included. Primary outcome was proven/probable invasive fungal infections (IFI). Analysis was completed by computing relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model and Mantel–Haenszel method.

Results:

From 984 reviewed articles, 20 were included in this review. Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduced the number of proven/probable IFI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). Mould-active prophylaxis also decreased the risk of invasive aspergillosis (IA; RR 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.75; P=0.0004) and IFI-related mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.96; P=0.03) but is also associated with an increased risk of adverse events (AEs) leading to antifungal discontinuation (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.24–3.07; P=0.004). There was no decrease in overall mortality (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.88–1.13; P=0.96).

Conclusion:

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduces proven/probable IFI, IA, and IFI-related mortality in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or HSCT, but increases AE and does not affect overall mortality.(PROSPERO Registration: CRD420111174)

Recommendations for broader coverage antifungal prophylaxis in childhood acute myeloid leukemia: ASH evidence-based review 2011

A 16-year-old female diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with inversion 16, a favorable prognostic indicator, has persistent neutropenia after her fourth cycle of dose-intensified chemotherapy. She was recently admitted for treatment with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, and an astute intern noticed a new lesion on her right foot with a dark necrotic center. A biopsy of the lesion showed spreading hyphae, consistent with Aspergillus. Despite her compliance with fluconazole fungal prophylaxis, computed tomography imaging revealed disseminated aspergillosis involving her lungs, liver, and kidneys. Amphotericin was started, but systemic fungemia and the development of multiorgan failure resulted in her death. You are in the difficult position of having to explain to her parents that she died in remission from chemotherapy-related complications. All of those involved in this unfortunate scenario wonder if something could have been done to prevent her death.

Medical cost analysis for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic simulation analysis

GOALS OF WORK

We assessed the medical costs of different antifungal agents for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients in Japan with a cost simulation model designed for the study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used probabilities of prophylaxis failure, possible cases for empiric therapy, probable proportions of infections caused by fungus species among prophylaxis failure patients, and incidence of adverse events caused by any reason, based on systematic analysis of previously reported randomized trials identified by a computerized search of the PubMed database. Antifungal agents were limited to oral fluconazole, oral itraconazole, micafungin, and liposomal amphotericin B. The range of the expected medical cost was simulated as a sensitivity analysis using 95% of confidence interval of a mean.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified for our analysis. The prophylactic efficacy was comparable between the four agents. The simulated expected cost for invasive fungal infection prophylaxis and treatment of the infection was $1,035.74 when oral itraconazole was used for prophylaxis, $1,552.81 with oral fluconazole, $2,245.96 with micafungin, and $3,028.10 with liposomal amphotericin B. The total cost including treatment cost for adverse events related to each drug was $2,742.14, $3,547.91, $3,034.57, and $3,028.10, respectively. This result was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis in which IFI incidence and therapy duration were tested as parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis results suggest that oral itraconazole is the most cost-effective prophylactic antifungal agent for invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies, and this result was robust by sensitivity analysis.

Prophylaxis with itraconazole is more effective than prophylaxis with fluconazole in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Antifungal prophylaxis using fluconazole or itraconazole has been studied for many years but still no consensus has been reached regarding their safety and effectiveness. We performed a systematic meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of fluconazole compared to itraconazole in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies. We gathered the data for our analysis from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane-controlled trials register, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index (1/1990 to 1/2009) searches. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect model. Nine RCTs were identified that were published in full text. Significantly, fewer patients were withdrawn from the studies due to the development of adverse effects with fluconazole prophylaxis when compared with itraconazole (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.75, P=0.002). There were statistically significant differences regarding fungal infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.67, P=0.009) and invasive fungal infections (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.02-1.73, P=0.03) between the two educations. There were no statistically significant differences regarding overall mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77-1.17, P=0.64), fungal-related mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.80-2.07, P=0.31), and proven fungal infections (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.75-2.53, P=0.30). The analysis of published evidence reveals that itraconazole administration resulted in significantly fewer episodes of fungal infections and invasive fungal infections compared with fluconazole.

Invasive fungal infections in pediatric leukemia patients receiving fluconazole prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Children with acute leukemia have increased risk for invasive fungal infections (IFI) but the role of long term antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) in morbidity and mortality of IFI is not well-known.

PROCEDURE

Medical records of 154 children with acute leukemia who received AFP with fluconazole during intensive chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed to determine risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcome of IFI.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of IFI was 13.6%. Frequencies of proven, probable and possible infections were 7.2%, 2.6%, and 3.8%, respectively. The causative agent was Candida in 12 (57.2%) and Aspergillus in 9 (42.8%) children. There were 10 children with candidemia (47.6%), 7 with pulmonary aspergillosis (33.4%), 2 with hepatosplenic candidiasis (10.0%), one with sinopulmonary aspergillosis (4.5%) and one with sinus aspergillosis (4.5%). IFI was twice as common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (20.7%) than in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (10.2%). Duration of profound neutropenia (P = 0.01) and steroid medications (P = 0.001) were significantly associated with IFI in univariate but not in multivariate analysis. Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) was successful in 15 of 21 children as a single agent. Voriconazole produced complete response in four children with invasive aspergillosis and two with hepatosplenic candidiasis, who were unresponsive to L-AMB. The rate of IFI attributable death was 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that AFP with fluconazole and early empirical antifungal therapy may be effective in reducing the incidence and mortality of IFI in children with acute leukemia.

Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancies. Recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology

There is no widely accepted standard for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies. The Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Oncology assigned a committee of hematologists and infectious disease specialists to develop recommendations. Literature data bases were systematically searched for clinical trials on antifungal prophylaxis. The studies identified were shared within the committee. Data were extracted by two of the authors (OAC and MSi). The consensus process was conducted by email communication. Finally, a review committee discussed the proposed recommendations. After consensus was established the recommendations were finalized. A total of 86 trials were identified including 16,922 patients. Only a few trials yielded significant differences in efficacy. Fluconazole 400 mg/d improved the incidence rates of invasive fungal infections and attributable mortality in allogeneic stem cell recipients. Posaconazole 600 mg/d reduced the incidence of IFI and attributable mortality in allogeneic stem cell recipients with severe graft versus host disease, and in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome additionally reduced overall mortality. Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B reduced the incidence rate of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Posaconazole 600 mg/d is recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome or undergoing allogeneic stem cell recipients with graft versus host disease for the prevention of invasive fungal infections and attributable mortality (Level A I). Fluconazole 400 mg/d is recommended in allogeneic stem cell recipients until development of graft versus host disease only (Level A I). Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B is recommended during prolonged neutropenia (Level B II).