Search

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Even with introduction of oral triazole antifungal agents (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole) IFI-associated morbidity and mortality rates and economic burden remain high. Despite their proven efficacy, it is currently unknown which is the most cost--effective antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) agent. To determine the costs and outcomes associated with AFP, a decision-analytic model was used to simulate treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients undergoing alloHSCT from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Generic itraconazole was the least costly AFP ((SIC) 162) relative to fluconazole ((SIC) 500), posaconazole oral suspension ((SIC) 8628) or voriconazole ((SIC) 6850). Compared with posaconazole, voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs (36 vs 60); thus, the model predicted fewer deaths from breakthrough IFI for voriconazole (24) than posaconazole (33), and the lowest predicted costs associated with other licensed antifungal treatment and IFI treatment in a cohort of 1000. Voriconazole-resulted in cost savings of (SIC) 4707 per patient compared with posaconazole. Itraconazole demonstrated a high probability of being cost-effective. As primary AFP in alloHSCT patients 180 days posttransplant, voriconazole was more likely to be cost-effective than posaconazole regarding cost per additional IFI and additional death avoided.

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Even with introduction of oral triazole antifungal agents (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole) IFI-associated morbidity and mortality rates and economic burden remain high. Despite their proven efficacy, it is currently unknown which is the most cost--effective antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) agent. To determine the costs and outcomes associated with AFP, a decision-analytic model was used to simulate treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients undergoing alloHSCT from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Generic itraconazole was the least costly AFP ((SIC) 162) relative to fluconazole ((SIC) 500), posaconazole oral suspension ((SIC) 8628) or voriconazole ((SIC) 6850). Compared with posaconazole, voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs (36 vs 60); thus, the model predicted fewer deaths from breakthrough IFI for voriconazole (24) than posaconazole (33), and the lowest predicted costs associated with other licensed antifungal treatment and IFI treatment in a cohort of 1000. Voriconazole-resulted in cost savings of (SIC) 4707 per patient compared with posaconazole. Itraconazole demonstrated a high probability of being cost-effective. As primary AFP in alloHSCT patients 180 days posttransplant, voriconazole was more likely to be cost-effective than posaconazole regarding cost per additional IFI and additional death avoided.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge

Background Isavuconazole is a novel triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity. The SECURE trial assessed efficacy and safety of isavuconazole versus voriconazole in patients with invasive mould disease. Methods This was a phase 3, double-blind, global multicentre, comparative-group study. Patients with suspected invasive mould disease were randomised in a 1: 1 ratio using an interactive voice-web response system, stratified by geographical region, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation, and active malignant disease at baseline, to receive isavuconazonium sulfate 372 mg (prodrug; equivalent to 200 mg isavuconazole; intravenously three times a day on days 1 and 2, then either intravenously or orally once daily) or voriconazole (6 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 1, 4 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 2, then intravenously 4 mg/kg twice daily or orally 200 mg twice daily from day 3 onwards). We tested non-inferiority of the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) using a 10% non-inferiority margin. Safety was assessed in patients who received the first dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00412893. Findings 527 adult patients were randomly assigned (258 received study medication per group) between March 7, 2007, and March 28, 2013. All-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 for the ITT population was 19% with isavuconazole (48 patients) and 20% with voriconazole (52 patients), with an adjusted treatment difference of -1.0% (95% CI -7.8 to 5.7). Because the upper bound of the 95% CI (5.7%) did not exceed 10%, non-inferiority was shown. Most patients (247 [96%] receiving isavuconazole and 255 [98%] receiving voriconazole) had treatment-emergent adverse events (p=0.122); the most common were gastrointestinal disorders (174 [68%] vs 180 [69

Background Isavuconazole is a novel triazole with broad-spectrum antifungal activity. The SECURE trial assessed efficacy and safety of isavuconazole versus voriconazole in patients with invasive mould disease. Methods This was a phase 3, double-blind, global multicentre, comparative-group study. Patients with suspected invasive mould disease were randomised in a 1: 1 ratio using an interactive voice-web response system, stratified by geographical region, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation, and active malignant disease at baseline, to receive isavuconazonium sulfate 372 mg (prodrug; equivalent to 200 mg isavuconazole; intravenously three times a day on days 1 and 2, then either intravenously or orally once daily) or voriconazole (6 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 1, 4 mg/kg intravenously twice daily on day 2, then intravenously 4 mg/kg twice daily or orally 200 mg twice daily from day 3 onwards). We tested non-inferiority of the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) using a 10% non-inferiority margin. Safety was assessed in patients who received the first dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00412893. Findings 527 adult patients were randomly assigned (258 received study medication per group) between March 7, 2007, and March 28, 2013. All-cause mortality from first dose of study drug to day 42 for the ITT population was 19% with isavuconazole (48 patients) and 20% with voriconazole (52 patients), with an adjusted treatment difference of -1.0% (95% CI -7.8 to 5.7). Because the upper bound of the 95% CI (5.7%) did not exceed 10%, non-inferiority was shown. Most patients (247 [96%] receiving isavuconazole and 255 [98%] receiving voriconazole) had treatment-emergent adverse events (p=0.122); the most common were gastrointestinal disorders (174 [68%] vs 180 [69

Background: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is associated with poor outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Small studies suggest a role for combination antifungal therapy. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of voriconazole and anidulafungin compared with voriconazole monotherapy for treatment of IA. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multi-center trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00531479) Setting: 93 international sites. Patients: 454 patients with HM or HCT and suspected or documented IA were randomly assigned to treatment with voriconazole and anidulafungin or placebo. Primary analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population of 277 patients in whom IA was confirmed. Measurements: The primary outcome was 6-week mortality; secondary outcomes included 12-week mortality, mortality in major subgroups, and safety measures. Results: Mortality rates at 6 weeks were 19.3% (26 of 135) for combination therapy and 27.5% (39 of 142) for monotherapy (difference, -8.2 percentage points [95% CI, -19.0 to 1.5]; P = 0.087). Secondary mortality outcomes favored combination therapy. Multivariable regression analysis suggested that maximum galactomannan value, Karnofsky score, and baseline platelet count had prognostic significance. Most patients (218 of 277 [78.7%]) had IA diagnosis established by radiographic findings and maximum galactomannan positivity. In a post hoc analysis of this dominant subgroup, 6-week mortality was lower in combination therapy than monotherapy (15.7% [17 of 108] vs. 27.3% [30 of 110]; difference, -11.5 percentage points [CI, -22.7 to -0.4]; P = 0.037). Safety measures, including hepatotoxicity, were not different. Limitations: Mortality at 6 weeks was higher than expected, and the difference in mortality was lower than expected, which reduced power to detect a treatment effect. Enrollment was restricted to patients with HM or HCT, which limited generalizabi

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC. Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/ probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents. Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC. Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/ probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents. Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Background: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is associated with poor outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Small studies suggest a role for combination antifungal therapy. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of voriconazole and anidulafungin compared with voriconazole monotherapy for treatment of IA. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multi-center trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00531479) Setting: 93 international sites. Patients: 454 patients with HM or HCT and suspected or documented IA were randomly assigned to treatment with voriconazole and anidulafungin or placebo. Primary analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population of 277 patients in whom IA was confirmed. Measurements: The primary outcome was 6-week mortality; secondary outcomes included 12-week mortality, mortality in major subgroups, and safety measures. Results: Mortality rates at 6 weeks were 19.3% (26 of 135) for combination therapy and 27.5% (39 of 142) for monotherapy (difference, -8.2 percentage points [95% CI, -19.0 to 1.5]; P = 0.087). Secondary mortality outcomes favored combination therapy. Multivariable regression analysis suggested that maximum galactomannan value, Karnofsky score, and baseline platelet count had prognostic significance. Most patients (218 of 277 [78.7%]) had IA diagnosis established by radiographic findings and maximum galactomannan positivity. In a post hoc analysis of this dominant subgroup, 6-week mortality was lower in combination therapy than monotherapy (15.7% [17 of 108] vs. 27.3% [30 of 110]; difference, -11.5 percentage points [CI, -22.7 to -0.4]; P = 0.037). Safety measures, including hepatotoxicity, were not different. Limitations: Mortality at 6 weeks was higher than expected, and the difference in mortality was lower than expected, which reduced power to detect a treatment effect. Enrollment was restricted to patients with HM or HCT, which limited generalizabi

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC. Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/ probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents. Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC. Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/ probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents. Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge