Search

Background Invasive fungal diseases remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients undergoing intensive cytotoxic therapy. The choice of the most appropriate antifungal treatment (AFT) depends on the fungal species suspected or identified, the patient's risk factors (eg length and depth of granulocytopenia) and the expected side effects. Objectives Since the last edition of recommendations for 'Treatment of invasive fungal infections in cancer patients' of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) in 2013, treatment strategies were gradually moving away from solely empirical therapy of presumed or possible invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) towards pre-emptive therapy of probable IFD. Methods The guideline was prepared by German clinical experts for infections in cancer patients in a stepwise consensus process. MEDLINE was systematically searched for English-language publications from January 1975 up to September 2019 using the key terms such as 'invasive fungal infection' and/or 'invasive fungal disease' and at least one of the following: antifungal agents, cancer, haematological malignancy, antifungal therapy, neutropenia, granulocytopenia, mycoses, aspergillosis, candidosis and mucormycosis. Results AFT of IFDs in cancer patients may include not only antifungal agents but also non-pharmacologic treatment. In addition, the armamentarium of antifungals for treatment of IFDs has been broadened (eg licensing of isavuconazole). Additional antifungals are currently under investigation or in clinical trials. Conclusions Here, updated recommendations for the treatment of proven or probable IFDs are given. All recommendations including the levels of evidence are summarised in tables to give the reader rapid access to key information.

Mucormycosis is a difficult to diagnose rare disease with high morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis is often delayed, and disease tends to progress rapidly. Urgent surgical and medical intervention is lifesaving. Guidance on the complex multidisciplinary management has potential to improve prognosis, but approaches differ between health-care settings. From January, 2018, authors from 33 countries in all United Nations regions analysed the published evidence on mucormycosis management and provided consensus recommendations addressing differences between the regions of the world as part of the One World One Guideline initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM). Diagnostic management does not differ greatly between world regions. Upon suspicion of mucormycosis appropriate imaging is strongly recommended to document extent of disease and is followed by strongly recommended surgical intervention. First-line treatment with high-dose liposomal amphotericin B is strongly recommended, while intravenous isavuconazole and intravenous or delayed release tablet posaconazole are recommended with moderate strength. Both triazoles are strongly recommended salvage treatments. Amphotericin B deoxycholate is recommended against, because of substantial toxicity, but may be the only option in resource limited settings. Management of mucormycosis depends on recognising disease patterns and on early diagnosis. Limited availability of contemporary treatments burdens patients in low and middle income settings. Areas of uncertainty were identified and future research directions specified.

Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFI), in particular those with haematological malignancies undergoing remission-induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). Despite the development of new treatment options in the past decades, IFI remains a concern due to substantial morbidity and mortality in these patient populations. In addition, the increasing use of new immune modulating drugs in cancer therapy has opened an entirely new spectrum of at risk periods. Since the last edition of antifungal prophylaxis recommendations of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology in 2014, seven clinical trials regarding antifungal prophylaxis in patients with haematological malignancies have been published, comprising 1227 patients. This update assesses the impact of this additional evidence and effective revisions. Our key recommendations are the following: prophylaxis should be performed with posaconazole delayed release tablets during remission induction chemotherapy for AML and MDS (AI). Posaconazole iv can be used when the oral route is contraindicated or not feasible. Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B did not significantly decrease IFI rates in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) patients during induction chemotherapy, and there is poor evidence to recommend it for prophylaxis in these patients (CI). Despite substantial risk of IFI, we cannot provide a stronger recommendation for these patients. There is poor evidence regarding voriconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia (CII). Therapeutic drug monitoring TDM should be performed within 2 to 5 days of initiating voriconazole prophylaxis and should be repeated in case of suspicious adverse events or of dose changes of interacting drugs (BIItu). General TDM during posaconazole prophylaxis is not recommended (CIItu), but may be helpful in cases

Invasive fungal diseases (IFD) are a primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with haematological malignancies. These infections are mostly life-threatening and an early diagnosis and initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy are essential for the clinical outcome. Most commonly, Aspergillus and Candida species are involved. However, other Non-Aspergillus moulds are increasingly identified in case of documented IFD. For definite diagnosis of IFD, a combination of diagnostic tools have to be applied, including conventional mycological culture and non-conventional microbiological tests such as antibody/antigen and molecular tests, as well as histopathology and radiology. Although varying widely in cancer patients, the risk of invasive fungal infection is highest in those with allogeneic stem cell transplantation and those with acute leukaemia and markedly lower in patients with solid cancer. Since the last edition of Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Diseases recommendations of the German Society for Hematology and Oncology in 2012, integrated care pathways have been proposed for the management and therapy of IFDs with either a diagnostic driven strategy as opposed to a clinical or empirical driven strategy. This update discusses the impact of this additional evidence and effective revisions.

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease (IMD; 2008 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group [EORTC/MSG] criteria) needed further assessment. The Phase III SECURE trial compared isavuconazole vs voriconazole for treatment of IMD. This post hoc analysis assessed all-cause mortality (ACM) through day 42 (primary endpoint) and day 84, overall and clinical success at end of treatment (EOT), and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in subgroups with proven/probable or possible IMD. Of 516 randomised patients, 304 (58.9%) had proven/probable IMD and 164 (31.8%) had possible IMD as per EORTC/MSG criteria; 48 did not have IMD. Across treatment groups, day 42 and day 84 ACM were numerically lower for possible vs proven/probable IMD (day 42: 17.1% vs 21.1%; P=0.3, day 84: 26.2% vs 32.6%; P=0.15). Overall and clinical success at EOT were significantly higher for possible IMD compared with proven/probable IMD (48.2% vs 36.2%; P=0.01, 75.0% vs 63.1%; P=0.01 respectively). Fewer drug-related TEAEs were reported with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole in patients with either proven/probable or possible IMD. Compared with patients with proven/probable IMD, those with possible IMD demonstrated higher overall and clinical success rates, supporting early initiation of antifungal treatment.

Treatment outcomes in patients with proven/probable vs possible invasive mould disease (IMD; 2008 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group [EORTC/MSG] criteria) needed further assessment. The Phase III SECURE trial compared isavuconazole vs voriconazole for treatment of IMD. This post hoc analysis assessed all-cause mortality (ACM) through day 42 (primary endpoint) and day 84, overall and clinical success at end of treatment (EOT), and drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in subgroups with proven/probable or possible IMD. Of 516 randomised patients, 304 (58.9%) had proven/probable IMD and 164 (31.8%) had possible IMD as per EORTC/MSG criteria; 48 did not have IMD. Across treatment groups, day 42 and day 84 ACM were numerically lower for possible vs proven/probable IMD (day 42: 17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.3, day 84: 26.2% vs 32.6%; P = 0.15). Overall and clinical success at EOT were significantly higher for possible IMD compared with proven/probable IMD (48.2% vs 36.2%; P = 0.01, 75.0% vs 63.1%; P = 0.01 respectively). Fewer drug-related TEAEs were reported with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole in patients with either proven/probable or possible IMD. Compared with patients with proven/probable IMD, those with possible IMD demonstrated higher overall and clinical success rates, supporting early initiation of antifungal treatment., SCOPUS: ar.j, DecretOANoAutActif, info:eu-repo/semantics/published