1 ANTIFUNGAL THERAPY IN ANTIFUNGAL THERAPY IN FEBRILE NEUTROPENIC FEBRILE NEUTROPENIC PATIENTS PATIENTS REVIEW OF TREATMENT REVIEW OF TREATMENT CHOICES CHOICES AND STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIES Jean KLASTERSKY, M.D., Ph. D. Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
56
Embed
1 ANTIFUNGAL THERAPY IN FEBRILE NEUTROPENIC PATIENTS REVIEW OF TREATMENT CHOICES AND STRATEGIES Jean KLASTERSKY, M.D., Ph. D. Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
ANTIFUNGAL THERAPY IN ANTIFUNGAL THERAPY IN FEBRILE NEUTROPENIC FEBRILE NEUTROPENIC
PATIENTS PATIENTS REVIEW OF TREATMENT REVIEW OF TREATMENT
CHOICESCHOICES AND STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIES
Jean KLASTERSKY, M.D., Ph. D.
Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
2G.S. MARTIN et al., NEJM 2003
3
Mc Neil M, CID 2001;13:;641-647
4
Frequency of non-Aspergillus mould infections at Fred-Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Seattle). The number of patients who developed proven or probable infection with Fusarium species, Zygomycetes and Scedosporium species from 1985 through 1999 are shown
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999
Scedosporium speciesZygomycetesFusarium species
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C.alb C.trop C.glab C.krus C.parap C.guil C.lusit other
Est OuestPathogenic Candida species in BMT recipients : Candida species that caused candidemia arecompared over 2 decades at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. The incidence ofcandidemia decreased from 11.4 % in 1980-1986 (72) compared to 4.6 % after adoption offluconazole for prophylaxis (1984-1997).
Marr K & Bowden R, Transplant Infectious Diseases 1999;1:237-246.
6
Antifungal prophylaxis in leukemia patients :
ECIL recommendations
7
Comparative trials of antifungal agents in candidemia and invasive candidasis
Response rate Overall mortality
Fluconazole vs amphotericin B 70 % vs 79 % 33 % vs 40 %
Itraconazole vs amphotericin B 35 % vs 41 % 40 %
ABLC vs amphotericin B 63 % vs 68 % 41 % vs 39 %
Caspofungin vs amphotericin B 73 % vs 62 % 30 % vs 34 %
Voriconazole vs amphotericin B 41 % vs 41 % 36 % vs 42 %
Micafungin vs Ambisome 89 % vs 89 %
Anidulafungin vs fluconazole 75 % vs 60 % 26 % vs 31 %
8
Why does the frequency of fungal infection increase ?
Rational for Empirical Antifungal Therapy inRational for Empirical Antifungal Therapy inNeutropenic Patients with Persistent FeverNeutropenic Patients with Persistent Fever
Early diagnosis of many fungal infections is difficult
Delayed treatment increasesmortality
Success of antibacterialempirical therapy
An Algorithm for Therapy of Febrile Neutropenia after Initial An Algorithm for Therapy of Febrile Neutropenia after Initial Empirical Therapy with Broad Spectrum AntibioticsEmpirical Therapy with Broad Spectrum Antibiotics
Follow Daily And Reassess After 72 Hours
Clinical response
Yes No
Pathogen isolated
Adjust to sensitivity
Look for localized infection
Use G/GM-CSF?
Continue for 7 days
Repeat cultures and serologyPerform chest CT and BAL
Add amphotericin, and possibly metronidazole, antivirals and/or G/GM-CSF as indicatedLook for non infectious causes of fever
Yes No
10
11
Possible Causes of Persistent FeverPossible Causes of Persistent FeverApproximate Approximate frequency in frequency in high risk high risk patients (%)patients (%)
Fungal infections susceptible to empirical therapy 40
Fungal infections resistant to empirical antifungal therapy 5
Bacterial infections (with cryptic foci and resistant organisms) 10
Toxoplasma gondii, mycobacteria, or fastidious pathogens (legionella, mycoplasma, chlamydia, bartonella)
5
Viral infections (cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, human herpes virus 6, varicella-zoster virus, herpes simplex virus) and respiratory pathogens such as parainfluenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza viruses
5
Graft-versus-host-disease after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation
10
Undefined (e.g. drug fever, toxic effects of chemotherapy, antitumor responses, undefined pathogens)
25
L. COREY and M. BOECKH, NEJM 2002
12
13
14
Infectious Complications in Each of the Groups Infectious Complications in Each of the Groups Following RandomizationFollowing Randomization
Randomization group
N°Clinically documented
Bacterial FungalViral Protozoal
Shock
Discontinue KGC 16 2 3 1 0 6
Continue KGC alone
16 0 1 5 0 0
KGC + Ampho B 18 0 0 1 1 0
P.A. PIZZO et al, Am J Med 1982KGC : cephalotin (Keflin), gentamicin, carbenicillin
14
15
Clinical Response Clinical Response in Persistently (4 days) Febrile in Persistently (4 days) Febrile Neutropenic PatientsNeutropenic Patients
Ampho B No Ampho B p Value
Overall
All patients 55/80 (68) 39/77 (50) 0.10
Prior antifungal prophylaxis
No 21/27 (78) 9/20 (45) 0.04
Yes 19/31 (61) 24/39 (61) NS
Infection documentation
Clinical 22/29 (75) 14/31 (41) 0.03
Possible 25/39 (64) 20/33 (60) NS
Granulocyte count at Day 4
< 100/µL 31/45 (69) 20/43 (46) 0.06
100-500/µL 16/23 (70) 14/21 (67) NS
EORTC-IATCG, Am J Med 1989
16
Causes of DeathCauses of Death with or without Empirical Ampho B with or without Empirical Ampho B in Persistently (4 Days) Febrile Neutropenic Patientsin Persistently (4 Days) Febrile Neutropenic Patients
Ampho B No Ampho B
Overall mortality (at day 30) * 11 14
Fungal infection** 0 4
Bacterial infection 1 2
Pulmonary infection (no bacterial or fungal pathogen identified at autopsy)
1 0
Other 9 8
(*) p = NS between the two groups(**) p = 0.05 between the two groups
EORTC-IATCG, Am J Med 1989
17
Randomized Studies Comparing Empirical Treatment with Randomized Studies Comparing Empirical Treatment with Antifungal Agents for Persisting Fever during NeutropeniaAntifungal Agents for Persisting Fever during Neutropenia
YEAR STUDY ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS COMPARED
1982
1989
1996
1998
1998
1999
2000
2000
2001
2002
2004
Pizzo et al
EORTC
Viscoli et al.
Malik et al.
White et al..
Walsh et al.
Winston et al.
Wingard et al.
Boogaerts et al.
Walsh et al.
Walsh et al.
Conventional ampho B vs no antifungal therapy
Conventional ampho B vs no antifungal therapy
Conventional ampho B vs fluconazole
Conventional ampho B vs fluconazole
Conventional ampho B vs ampho B colloidal dispersion
Conventional ampho B vs liposomal ampho B
Conventional ampho B vs fluconazole
Liposomal ampho B vs ampho B lipid complex
Conventional ampho B vs itraconazole
Liposomal ampho B vs voriconazole
Liposomal ampho B vs caspofungin
18
Measures of the Success (%) of Empirical Antifungal Therapy with Measures of the Success (%) of Empirical Antifungal Therapy with Conventional or Liposomal Amphotericin B, Voriconazole or Conventional or Liposomal Amphotericin B, Voriconazole or
CaspofunginCaspofungin
Ampho B Liposomal Ampho B Voriconazole Caspofungin (Ampho B) (Vori) (Caspo)
N° of patients 344 343 422 539 415 556
Overall success 49.4 50.1 30.6 33.7 26.0 33.9
Resolution of fever 58.1 58.0 36.5 41.4 32.5 41.2
No breakthroughfungal infection 89.2 90.1 95.0 95.5 98.1 94.8
No discontinuationNo discontinuationfor toxic effectsfor toxic effects 81.481.4 85.7 93.4 85.5 85.7 93.4 85.5 90.1 89.7 90.1 89.7 or lack of efficacyor lack of efficacy
J. KLASTERSKY, NEJM 2004
19
Comments on the Walsh’s studies
Large prospective controlled trials Composite score : « common language » BUT
– Survival and fever can be influenced by many other factors than just the nature of the empirical regimen
– What is the difference between « baseline » FI (<72h) and « breakthrough » FI (>72h) ?
– Discontinuation for toxicity or lack of efficacy :
« mixing apples and pears » ?
20
Toxicity of Empirical Antifungal Therapy %
Conventional amphotericin
Liposomal amphotericin
Voriconazole Caspofungin
Total n° patients 344 1312 415 564
Chills
Nephrotoxicity*
54
34
24
13
13
7
14
3
Discontinuation for toxicity
18 9 5** 5
* Creatinine increase 2 x base line ** Visual hallucinations more frequent with voriconazole (4.3 % vs 0.5 %)
21
Measures of the Success (%) of Empirical Antifungal Therapy with Measures of the Success (%) of Empirical Antifungal Therapy with Conventional or Liposomal Amphotericin B, Voriconazole or Conventional or Liposomal Amphotericin B, Voriconazole or
CaspofunginCaspofungin Ampho B Liposomal Ampho B Voriconazole
- PCR for CMV, HSV, VZV, Toxoplasma, Pneumocystis, Mycoplasma, Chlamydia
43
The preemptive approach(adapted from Maertens et al.)
« Possible IFI »
Liposomal amphotericin B (5 mg/kg)
IF– > 2 consecutives EIA for galactomannan assays
> 0.5)
OR– CT suggestive of IFI supported by microbiology
44
The preemptive approach of persistent febrile neutropenia in 88 patients(adapted from Maertens et al.)
Persistent fever 35/117 (29 %) episodes Prevalence of IFI : 22 % (mortality 36 %) No aspergillar infection was missed Early therapy could be initiated in clinically not
suspected cases Significant (78 %) reduction in use of
antifungals
45CID, 2005
46
Empirical versus preemptive therapy (liposomal amphotericin B) in patients with persisting fever
and neutropenia
Adapted from Maertens’ study 35 patients with persistent fever
Which Antifungal Drug is Best for the Which Antifungal Drug is Best for the Empirical Empirical Treatment of Treatment of Patients with Febrile Neutropenia?Patients with Febrile Neutropenia?
Few adverse effects
(amphotericin B < lipid preparations < voriconazole = caspo)
Superiority of action :
– conventional amphotericin looks to be the least effective
– voriconazole might be superior in reducing microbiologically proven
failures
– Cost
Resistance
52
Average Daily Cost of Antifungal Therapy (Jules Bordet Bruxelles)
Dose Euros
Conventional Amphotericin B 1 mg/kg 8
Liposomal amphotericin B 3 mg/kg 629
Voriconazole 400 mg IV 407
Voriconazole 400 mg PO 84
Caspofungin 70 mg IV 644
53
Sensitivity of common pathogenic fungi
Amphotericin B Voriconazole Caspofungin
Candida sp. S S S
C. lusitaniae R S S
C. krusei S S** S
C. glabrata S S** S
Trichosporon sp. R S S
Aspergillus sp.* S S S
Fusarium sp. R S R
Mucorales S R R
C. neoformans S S R
*Except terreus**MIC are higher than for C. albicans but still < 3 ng/ml
54
Antifungal therapy in persistently febrile neutropenic patients
Voriconazole is presently the optimal choice for therapy and empirical therapy of suspected aspergillar infections
Early therapy (empirical) is needed since mortality remains high (30-50 %)
Empirical therapy reduces the incidence of IFI from + 25 % to + 3.5 %; the corresponding figures for liposomal ampho B and caspofungin being + 7 %
Experience with the preemptive approach is still limited; it is demanding in terms of diagnostic procedures but it reduces the rate of overtreatment.
There is evidence so far that pre-emptive therapy is inferior in efficacy and not more cost effective than the empirical approach
Conclusions
55
Needs for Improvement Needs for Improvement of Neutropenic Febrile Patients with of Neutropenic Febrile Patients with Persistent Fever to Avoid OvertreatmentPersistent Fever to Avoid Overtreatment
1. Better diagnostic tools for EARLIER microbiological and
clinical diagnosis : galactomannan, PCR, those caused by
Aspergillus sp.
1. More accurate IDENTIFICATION OF PATIENTS at high