Search

Background: Empiric antifungal therapy is considered the standard of care for high-risk neutropenic patients with persistent fever. The impact of a preemptive, diagnostic-driven approach based on galactomannan screening and chest computed tomography scan on demand on survival and on the risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) during the first weeks of high-risk neutropenia is unknown., Methods: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients were randomly assigned to receive caspofungin empirically (arm A) or preemptively (arm B), while receiving fluconazole 400 mg daily prophylactically. The primary end point of this noninferiority study was overall survival (OS) 42 days after randomization., Results: Of 556 patients recruited, 549 were eligible: 275 in arm A and 274 in arm B. Eighty percent of the patients had AML or MDS requiring high-dose chemotherapy, and 93% of them were in the first induction phase. At day 42, the OS was not inferior in arm B (96.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 93.8%-98.3%) when compared with arm A (93.1%; 95% CI, 89.3%-95.5%). The rates of IFDs at day 84 were not significantly different, 7.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.8%) in arm B vs 6.6% (95% CI, 3.6%-9.5%) in arm A. The rate of patients who received caspofungin was significantly lower in arm B (27%) than in arm A (63%; P < .001)., Conclusions: The preemptive antifungal strategy was safe for high-risk neutropenic patients given fluconazole as prophylaxis, halving the number of patients receiving antifungals without excess mortality or IFDs. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01288378; EudraCT 2010-020814-27., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. M. reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer, including participation on a data and safety monitoring board or advisory board (DSMB) for MSD, Gilead, and Pfizer. T. L. reports payment for participation on virtual European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation meeting. J. P. D. reports consulting fees from F2G and Gilead Sciences, including payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from F2G, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer, and unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group for the European PCR Initiative Foundation. C. R. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead and Sandoz and support for attending meetings and/or travel for Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, and Sandoz. N. B. reports participation as the chair on a DSMB for the SHORT trial and roles as the president of the Dutch Society of Hematology (unpaid), Treasurer Board member for HOVON (unpaid), chair of the Horizonscan WP Hematology Dutch Healthcare Institute (vacancy fee), and member of the board of supervisors for Matchis (compensation according to Dutch law). D. S. reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, MSD, and Takeda, including consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Takeda, MSD, Janssen-Cilag, and Astellas; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Takeda, MSD, and Janssen-Cilag; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, Takeda, MSD, and Janssen-Cilag; and a leadership or fiduciary role for other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid for Belgian College for Reimbursement of Orphan Drugs. F. B. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie and Sanofi; support for attending an international meeting from Novartis and Pfizer; and participation on a DSMB or advisory board for some academic studies (no fee) and Maatpharma (paid to institution). W. J. H. reports payment or honoraria for presentations from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen; support for attending meetings from IPSEN Pharma, Amgen, and Abbvie; and support for attending adboards for Amgen, Astrazeneca, Celgene/BMS, Gilead Sciences Janssen, MSD, and Sanofi-Aventis. B. V. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Al Miral; support for attending meetings and/or travel for ViiV; and participation on a DSMB or advisory board for Pfizer. L. D. reports consulting fees from MSD, Pfizer, and Teva; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, Pfizer, Teva, and Sandoz; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sandoz; and participation on an advisory board for Pfizer. C. C. L. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead and Kite and support for attending meetings and/or travel for Gilead and Kite. C. S. P. reports book royalties from Elsevier and Thieme and honoraria for lectures from Canon Medical Systems. R. B. reports consulting fees from Gilead; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead; and support for attending meetings and/or travel for Gilead. P. E. V. reports research grants from ZonMw, Welcome Trust, Eurostars, EORTC, and RIVM; consulting fees from F2G, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences and Pfizer. F. L. reports research grants from Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, Gilead, Pfizer, and Novartis and consulting fees (advisory board) from Gilead and Pfizer. P. Y. B. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead Sciences Switzerland AG and Pfizer PFE Switzerland GmbH and support for Gilead Sciences Switzerland Sarl for TIMM, Trends in Medical Mycology. D. H. reports employment with Merck & Co. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

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%]) and infections and infestations (152 [59%] vs 158 [61%]). Proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events by system organ class were similar overall. However, isavuconazole-treated patients had a lower frequency of hepatobiliary disorders (23 [9%] vs 42 [16%]; p=0·016), eye disorders (39 [15%] vs 69 [27%]; p=0·002), and skin or subcutaneous tissue disorders (86 [33%] vs 110 [42%]; p=0·037). Drug-related adverse events were reported in 109 (42%) patients receiving isavuconazole and 155 (60%) receiving voriconazole (p<0·001)., Interpretation: Isavuconazole was non-inferior to voriconazole for the primary treatment of suspected invasive mould disease. Isavuconazole was well tolerated compared with voriconazole, with fewer study-drug-related adverse events. Our results support the use of isavuconazole for the primary treatment of patients with invasive mould disease., Funding: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: A two-part (Phase 1B/3), sequential, open-label, multicentre study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of intravenous (iv) posaconazole given as antifungal prophylaxis to neutropenic patients with AML or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or to recipients at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) after allogeneic HSCT.Methods: Patients (N = 237) received 300 mg of posaconazole iv twice daily on day 1, followed by 300 mg of posaconazole iv once daily for 4-28 days. After at least 5 days, patients were randomly assigned to receive posaconazole oral suspension, 400 mg twice daily or 200 mg three times daily, to complete a 28 day treatment course. Primary PK parameters were steady-state average concentration over the dosing interval (Cavg) and posaconazole trough levels (Cmin).Results: Mean posaconazole Cmin was 1320 ng/mL (day 6) and 1297 ng/mL (day 8); steady-state Cmin was 1090 ng/mL (day 10). Mean steady-state posaconazole Cavg was 1500 ng/mL (day 10 or 14) and was similar in HSCT recipients (1560 ng/mL) and AML/MDS patients (1470 ng/mL). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (8%), nausea (5%) and rash (5%). IFD was reported in 3/237 patients (1%; 2 proven, 1 probable).Conclusions: Intravenous posaconazole at 300 mg was well tolerated, resulted in adequate steady-state systemic exposure and was associated with a low incidence of IFD in this population at high risk.Trial Registry and Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01075984. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]