Search

Background: Safety, tolerability and efficacy of itraconazole and amphotericin B (AMB) were compared for empirical antifungal treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients., Patients and Methods: In an open, randomised study, 162 patients with at least 72 h of antimicrobial treatment received either intravenous followed by oral itraconazole suspension or intravenous AMB for a maximum of 28 days. Permanent discontinuation of study medication due to any adverse event was the primary safety parameter. Efficacy parameters included response and success rate for both treatment groups., Results: Significantly fewer itraconazole patients discontinued treatment due to any adverse event (22.2 vs. 56.8% AMB; p < 0.0001). The main reason for discontinuation was a rise in serum creatinine (1.2% itraconazole vs. 23.5% AMB). Renal toxicity was significantly higher and more drug-related adverse events occurred in the AMB group. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed favourable efficacy for itraconazole: response and success rate were both significantly higher than for AMB (61.7 vs. 42% and 70.4 vs. 49.3%, both p < 0.0001). Treatment failure was markedly reduced in itraconazole patients (25.9 vs. 43.2%), largely due to the better tolerability., Conclusions: Itraconazole was tolerated significantly better than conventional AMB and also showed advantages regarding efficacy. This study confirms the role of itraconazole as a useful and safe agent in empirical antifungal therapy of febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society of Haematology and Oncology presents their guidelines for the treatment of fungal infections in patients with hematological and oncological malignancies. These guidelines are evidence-based, considering study results, case reports and expert opinions, using the evidence criteria of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). The recommendations for major fungal complications in this setting are summarized here. The primary choice of therapy for chronic candidiasis should be fluconazole, reserving caspofungin or amphotericin B (AmB) for use in case of progression of the Candida infection. Patients with candidemia (except C. krusei or C. glabrata) who are in a clinically stable condition without previous azole prophylaxis should receive fluconazole, otherwise AmB or caspofungin. Voriconazole is recommended for the first-line treatment of invasive aspergillosis. The benefit of a combination of AmB and 5-flucytosine has not been demonstrated except in patients with cryptococcal meningitis. Mucormycosis is relatively rare. The drug therapy of choice consists of AmB, desoxycholate or liposomal formulation, in the highest tolerable dosage. Additional surgical intervention has been shown to achieve a lower fatality rate than with antifungal therapy alone. The role of interventional strategies, cytokines/G-CSF, and granulocyte transfusions in invasive fungal infections are further reviewed. These guidelines offer actual standards and discussions on the treatment of oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis, invasive candidiasis, cryptococcosis and mould infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancies, especially leukemia and lymphoma, are increased by invasive fungal infections. Since diagnosis of invasive fungal infection is often delayed, antifungal prophylaxis is an attractive approach for patients expecting prolonged neutropenia. Antifungal prophylaxis has obviously attracted much interest resulting in dozens of clinical trials since the late 1970s. The non-absorbable polyenes are probably ineffective in preventing invasive fungal infections, but may reduce superficial mycoses. Intravenous amphotericin B and the newer azoles were used in clinical trials, but their role in antifungal prophylaxis is still not well defined. Allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients are at particularly high risk for invasive fungal infections. Other well described risk factors are neutropenia >10 days, corticosteroid therapy, sustained immunosuppression, graft versus host disease, and concomitant viral infections. The enormous study efforts are contrasted by a scarcity of risk stratified evidence based recommendations for clinical decision making. The objective of this review accumulating information on about 10.000 patients is to assess evidence based criteria primarily regarding the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor regarding antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole oral solution in neutropenic patients published in the December 1999 issue of "Mycoses."