Cargando…

When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients

BACKGROUND: Patients unable to take azoles are a neglected group lacking a standardized approach to antifungal prophylaxis. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of intermittent liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) prophylaxis in a heterogenous group of hematology patients. METHODS: A retrospective...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batchelor, R, Thomas, C, Gardiner, B J, Lee, S J, Fleming, S, Wei, A, Coutsouvelis, J, Ananda-Rajah, M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8318248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34337090
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab113
_version_ 1783730208610713600
author Batchelor, R
Thomas, C
Gardiner, B J
Lee, S J
Fleming, S
Wei, A
Coutsouvelis, J
Ananda-Rajah, M
author_facet Batchelor, R
Thomas, C
Gardiner, B J
Lee, S J
Fleming, S
Wei, A
Coutsouvelis, J
Ananda-Rajah, M
author_sort Batchelor, R
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients unable to take azoles are a neglected group lacking a standardized approach to antifungal prophylaxis. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of intermittent liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) prophylaxis in a heterogenous group of hematology patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of all hematology patients who received a course of intravenous L-AMB, defined as 1 mg/kg thrice weekly from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018, were identified from pharmacy records. Outcomes included breakthrough-invasive fungal disease (BIFD), reasons for premature discontinuation, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: There were 198 patients who received 273 courses of L-AMB prophylaxis. Using a conservative definition, the BIFD rate was 9.6% (n = 19 of 198) occurring either during L-AMB prophylaxis or up to 7 days from cessation in patients who received a course. Probable/proven BIFD occurred in 13 patients (6.6%, 13 of 198), including molds in 54% (n = 7) and non-albicans Candidemia in 46% (n = 6). Cumulative incidence of BIFD was highest in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (6.8%) followed by acute lymphoblastic leukemia (2.7%) and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (2.5%). The most common indication for L-AMB was chemotherapy, or anticancer drug-azole interactions (75% of courses) dominated by vincristine, or acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials, followed by gut absorption concerns (13%) and liver function abnormalities (8.8%). Acute kidney injury, using a modified international definition, complicated 27% of courses but was not clinically significant, accounting for only 3.3% (9 of 273) of discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a high rate of BIFD among patients receiving L-AMB prophylaxis. Pragmatic trials will help researchers find the optimal regimen of L-AMB prophylaxis for the many clinical scenarios in which azoles are unsuitable, especially as targeted anticancer drugs increase in use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8318248
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83182482021-07-29 When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients Batchelor, R Thomas, C Gardiner, B J Lee, S J Fleming, S Wei, A Coutsouvelis, J Ananda-Rajah, M Open Forum Infect Dis Major Articles BACKGROUND: Patients unable to take azoles are a neglected group lacking a standardized approach to antifungal prophylaxis. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of intermittent liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) prophylaxis in a heterogenous group of hematology patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of all hematology patients who received a course of intravenous L-AMB, defined as 1 mg/kg thrice weekly from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018, were identified from pharmacy records. Outcomes included breakthrough-invasive fungal disease (BIFD), reasons for premature discontinuation, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: There were 198 patients who received 273 courses of L-AMB prophylaxis. Using a conservative definition, the BIFD rate was 9.6% (n = 19 of 198) occurring either during L-AMB prophylaxis or up to 7 days from cessation in patients who received a course. Probable/proven BIFD occurred in 13 patients (6.6%, 13 of 198), including molds in 54% (n = 7) and non-albicans Candidemia in 46% (n = 6). Cumulative incidence of BIFD was highest in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (6.8%) followed by acute lymphoblastic leukemia (2.7%) and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (2.5%). The most common indication for L-AMB was chemotherapy, or anticancer drug-azole interactions (75% of courses) dominated by vincristine, or acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials, followed by gut absorption concerns (13%) and liver function abnormalities (8.8%). Acute kidney injury, using a modified international definition, complicated 27% of courses but was not clinically significant, accounting for only 3.3% (9 of 273) of discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a high rate of BIFD among patients receiving L-AMB prophylaxis. Pragmatic trials will help researchers find the optimal regimen of L-AMB prophylaxis for the many clinical scenarios in which azoles are unsuitable, especially as targeted anticancer drugs increase in use. Oxford University Press 2021-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8318248/ /pubmed/34337090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab113 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Major Articles
Batchelor, R
Thomas, C
Gardiner, B J
Lee, S J
Fleming, S
Wei, A
Coutsouvelis, J
Ananda-Rajah, M
When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients
title When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients
title_full When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients
title_fullStr When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients
title_full_unstemmed When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients
title_short When Azoles Cannot Be Used: The Clinical Effectiveness of Intermittent Liposomal Amphotericin Prophylaxis in Hematology Patients
title_sort when azoles cannot be used: the clinical effectiveness of intermittent liposomal amphotericin prophylaxis in hematology patients
topic Major Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8318248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34337090
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab113
work_keys_str_mv AT batchelorr whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT thomasc whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT gardinerbj whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT leesj whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT flemings whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT weia whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT coutsouvelisj whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients
AT anandarajahm whenazolescannotbeusedtheclinicaleffectivenessofintermittentliposomalamphotericinprophylaxisinhematologypatients