Search

Item does not contain fulltext, 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.

Contains fulltext : 71161.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. METHODS: After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. RESULTS: The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. CONCLUSIONS: These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.

Contains fulltext : 50792.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, This forum report contains conclusions about 3 different issues relevant to conducting clinical trials in deep mycoses. (1) Trials of diagnostic tests for deep mycoses must define the population appropriate for testing and the clinical question being asked. The unanswered question for the serum Aspergillus galactomannan assay is whether knowledge of results can change use of empirical therapy to treat febrile patients at high risk of invasive aspergillosis. (2) Use of historical controls is suboptimal but offers a pragmatic solution for studying rare mycoses; use of contemporaneous controls, matched for critical variables and evaluated by a blinded data review committee using detailed criteria, appears optimal. (3) Established groups of independent investigators, such as the European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer's Invasive Fungal Infections Group and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases's Bacteriology and Mycology Study Group, provide a pool of experienced investigators, defined operating rules, impartiality, and specialized expertise. Considering the enormous investment required for adequately powered efficacy trials of antifungal agents and the importance of these trials to guide clinical practice, use of collaborative groups outweighs the extra administrative time that is sometimes required.

Item does not contain fulltext, A recent trial of drugs for invasive aspergillosis was used as a background for discussing critical features in the design of antifungal trials. The study under discussion allowed stopping either drug without classifying the patient as having treatment failure, so the trial should be understood as a comparison of 2 treatment strategies, not just 2 drugs. Although the study was a noninferiority trial, the outcome permitted a claim of superiority. Use of the category of "probable" in addition to "proven" aspergillosis permitted inclusion of patients for whom the diagnosis was less certain but who were still early enough in the disease progression to respond to therapy. Different opinions still exist about some of the criteria for the diagnosis of "probable" aspergillosis. A blinded data review committee was helpful in evaluating efficacy in this unblinded trial but had limited value in assessing toxicity. An understanding of these features of design of antifungal drug trials is important in applying the results to clinical practice.

Item does not contain fulltext, There is inferential evidence that some patients with prolonged neutropenia and fever not responding to antibacterial agents are at sufficient risk of deep mycoses to warrant empirical therapy, although superiority of an antifungal agent over placebo has not been conclusively demonstrated. Amphotericin B deoxycholate, liposomal amphotericin B, and intravenous itraconazole followed by oral itraconazole solution are licensed in the United States for this indication. Fluconazole and voriconazole have given favorable results in clinical trials of patients with low and high risk of deep mold infections, respectively. Design features that can profoundly influence outcome of empirical trials are (1) inclusion of low-risk patients, (2) failure to blind the study, (3) obscuration of antifungal effects by changing antibacterial antibiotics, (4) failure to balance both arms of the study in terms of patients with prior antifungal prophylaxis or with severe comorbidities, (5) the merging of end points evaluating safety with those of efficacy, and (6) choice of different criteria for resolution of fever.