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., (© 2020 The Authors. Mycoses published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH.)

The Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Oncology (DGHO) here presents its updated recommendations for the treatment of documented fungal infections. Invasive fungal infections are a main cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy regimens. In recent years, new antifungal agents have been licensed, and agents already approved have been studied in new indications. The choice of the most appropriate antifungal treatment depends on the fungal species suspected or identified, the patient's risk factors (e.g., length and depth of neutropenia), and the expected side effects. This guideline reviews the clinical studies that served as a basis for the following recommendations. All recommendations including the levels of evidence are summarized in tables to give the reader rapid access to the information.

Patients with haematological malignancies (HM) are at high risk of developing invasive fungal disease (IFD) with high morbidity and attributable mortality. We reviewed data published until September 2021 to update the 2017 antifungal prophylaxis recommendations of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO). The strong recommendation to administer antifungal prophylaxis in patients with HM with long-lasting neutropenia, i.e. <500 cells/μL for >7 days remains unchanged. Posaconazole remains the drug of choice for mould-active prophylaxis in these patients. Novel treatment options in HM, such as CAR-T-cell treatment or novel targeted therapies for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) were considered, however, data are insufficient to give general recommendations for routine antifungal prophylaxis in these patients. Major changes regarding specific recommendations compared to the 2017 edition are the now moderate instead of mild support for the recommendations of isavuconazole and voriconazole. Furthermore, published evidence on micafungin allows recommending it at moderate strength for its use in HM. For the first time we included recommendations for non-pharmaceutical measures regarding IFD, comprising the use of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, smoking, measures during construction work and neutropenic diets. We reviewed the impact of antifungal prophylaxis with triazoles on drug–drug interactions with novel targeted therapies that are metabolized via cytochrome p450 where triazoles inhibit CYP3A4/5. The working group recommends reducing the dose of venetoclax when used concomitantly with strong CYP3A4 inhibiting antifungals. Furthermore, we reviewed data on the prophylactic use of novel antifungal agents. Currently there is no evidence to support their use in a prophylactic setting in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]