Safety and Efficacy of Itraconazole Compared to Amphotericin B as Empirical Antifungal Therapy for Neutropenic Fever in Patients with Haematological Malignancy

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.Hintergrund: Es wurden die Sicherheit, Verträglichkeit und Wirksamkeit von Itraconazol und Amphotericin B (AMB) in der antimykotischen Therapie der persistierend febrilen Neutropenie verglichen. Patienten und Methoden: In einer offenen, randomisierten Studie erhielten 162 Patienten mit mindestens 72-stündiger antibiotischer Therapie entweder Itraconazol (erst intravenös, dann oral) oder AMB (intravenös) für maximal 28 Tage. Primärer Sicherheitsparameter war die dauerhafte Unterbrechung der Studienmedikation aufgrund von Nebenwirkungen. Die Wirksamkeitsparameter umfassten die Ansprech- und Erfolgsrate für beide Behandlungsgruppen. Ergebnisse: Signifikant weniger Itraconazol-Patienten brachen die Behandlung wegen Nebenwirkungen ab (22,2 vs. 56,8% AMB; p < 0,0001). Hauptursache für Studienabbrüche war der Anstieg des Serum-Kreatinin-Spiegels (1,2% Itraconazol vs. 23,5% AMB). Nephrotoxische und weitere Nebenwirkungen traten im AMB-Studienarm signifikant häufiger auf. Intention-to-Treat (ITT)-Analysen zeigten eine bessere Wirksamkeit von Itraconazol: Ansprech- und Erfolgsrate waren signifikant höher als unter AMB (61,7 vs. 42% und 70,4 vs. 49,3%, beide p < 0,0001). Behandlungsversagen trat bei Itraconazol-Patienten merklich weniger auf (25,9 vs. 43,2%). Schlussfolgerungen: Die Verträglichkeit von Itraconazol war signifikant höher als beim herkömmlichen AMB. Itraconazol zeigte ebenfalls Vorteile in der Wirksamkeit. Diese Studie bestätigt die Rolle von Itraconazol als sinnvolles und sicheres Medikament in der empirischen antimykotischen Therapie von fiebrigen neutropenischen Tumorpatienten.Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich

Management of infections in patients with cancer Responsible use of anti-infectives

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of infection due to disease-associated or therapy-induced immunosuppression. Taking into account globally increasing antimicrobial resistance rates and negative effects associated with antibiotic treatments, the effective, appropriate and guideline-conform use of anti-infectives must be promoted in this clinical setting. The application of antibacterial prophylaxis should be limited to high-risk patients. Infection diagnostics and therapeutic strategies differ depending on the extent of expected immunosuppression and the patient's individual risk factors

Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies-update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Reactivation of viral infections is common in patients with solid tumour or haematological malignancy. Incidence and severity depend on the extent of cellular immunosuppression. Antiviral prophylaxis may be effective to prevent viral reactivation. In 2006, the Infectious Diseases Working Party of German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) published guidelines for antiviral prophylaxis in these patient populations. Here, we present an update of these guidelines for patients with solid and haematological malignancies undergoing antineoplastic treatment but not allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Relevant literature for reactivation of different viruses (herpes simplex virus (HSV), varicella zoster virus (VZV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and respiratory viruses) is discussed to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians taking care of this patient population. We recommend a risk-adapted approach with (val)acyclovir against HSV and VZV in patients treated with alemtuzumab, bortezomib or purine analogues. Seasonal vaccination against influenza is recommended for all patients with solid or haematological malignancies regardless of antineoplastic therapy. Hepatitis B screening is recommended in lymphoproliferative disorders, acute leukaemia, and breast cancer, and during treatment with monoclonal anti-B-cell antibodies, anthracyclines, steroids and in autologous stem cell transplantation. In those with a history of hepatitis B prophylactic lamivudine, entecavir or nucleotide analogues as adefovir are recommended to prevent reactivation

Management of herpesvirus reactivations in patients with solid tumours and hematologic malignancies: update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) on herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and varicella zoster virus

Clinical reactivations of herpes simplex virus or varicella zoster virus occur frequently among patients with malignancies and manifest particularly as herpes simplex stomatitis in patients with acute leukaemia treated with intensive chemotherapy and as herpes zoster in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma. In recent years, knowledge on reactivation rates and clinical manifestations has increased for conventional chemotherapeutics as well as for many new antineoplastic agents. This guideline summarizes current evidence on herpesvirus reactivation in patients with solid tumours and hematological malignancies not undergoing allogeneic or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or other cellular therapy including diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic aspects. Particularly, strategies of risk adapted pharmacological prophylaxis and vaccination are outlined for different patient groups. This guideline updates the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) from 2015 Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies focusing on herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus

Evidence-based management of COVID-19 in cancer patients: Guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Since its first detection in China in late 2019 the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the associated infectious disease COVID-19 continue to have a major impact on global healthcare and clinical practice. Cancer patients, in particular those with haematological malignancies, seem to be at an increased risk for a severe course of infection. Deliberations to avoid or defer potentially immunosuppressive therapies in these patients need to be balanced against the overarching goal of providing optimal antineoplastic treatment. This poses a unique challenge to treating physicians. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding prevention, diagnostics and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 as well as strategies towards safe antineoplastic care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was prepared by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) by critically reviewing the currently available data on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 in cancer patients applying evidence-based medicine criteria. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd