20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Defining breakthrough invasive fungal infection–Position paper of the mycoses study group education and research consortium and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , for the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium (MSG‐ERC) and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM)
      Mycoses
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Breakthrough invasive fungal infections (IFIs) have emerged as a significant problem in patients receiving systemic antifungals; however, consensus criteria for defining breakthrough IFI are missing. This position paper establishes broadly applicable definitions of breakthrough IFI for clinical research. Representatives of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium (MSG-ERC) and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) reviewed the relevant English literature for definitions applied and published through 2018. A draft proposal for definitions was developed and circulated to all members of the two organisations for comment and suggestions. The authors addressed comments received and circulated the updated document for approval. Breakthrough IFI was defined as any IFI occurring during exposure to an antifungal drug, including fungi outside the spectrum of activity of an antifungal. The time of breakthrough IFI was defined as the first attributable clinical sign or symptom, mycological finding or radiological feature. The period defining breakthrough IFI depends on pharmacokinetic properties and extends at least until one dosing interval after drug discontinuation. Persistent IFI describes IFI that is unchanged/stable since treatment initiation with ongoing need for antifungal therapy. It is distinct from refractory IFI, defined as progression of disease and therefore similar to non-response to treatment. Relapsed IFI occurs after treatment and is caused by the same pathogen at the same site, although dissemination can occur. These proposed definitions are intended to support the design of future clinical trials and epidemiological research in clinical mycology, with the ultimate goal of increasing the comparability of clinical trial results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references142

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis.

          Anidulafungin, a new echinocandin, has potent activity against candida species. We compared anidulafungin with fluconazole in a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial of treatment for invasive candidiasis. Adults with invasive candidiasis were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous anidulafungin or intravenous fluconazole. All patients could receive oral fluconazole after 10 days of intravenous therapy. The primary efficacy analysis assessed the global response (clinical and microbiologic) at the end of intravenous therapy in patients who had a positive baseline culture. Efficacy was also assessed at other time points. Eighty-nine percent of the 245 patients in the primary analysis had candidemia only. Candida albicans was isolated in 62% of the 245 patients. In vitro fluconazole resistance was infrequent. Most of the patients (97%) did not have neutropenia. At the end of intravenous therapy, treatment was successful in 75.6% of patients treated with anidulafungin, as compared with 60.2% of those treated with fluconazole (difference, 15.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 27.0). The results were similar for other efficacy end points. The statistical analyses failed to show a "center effect"; when data from the site enrolling the largest number of patients were removed, success rates at the end of intravenous therapy were 73.2% in the anidulafungin group and 61.1% in the fluconazole group (difference, 12.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 25.3). The frequency and types of adverse events were similar in the two groups. The rate of death from all causes was 31% in the fluconazole group and 23% in the anidulafungin group (P=0.13). Anidulafungin was shown to be noninferior to fluconazole in the treatment of invasive candidiasis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00056368 [ClinicalTrials.gov]). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The sepsis seesaw: tilting toward immunosuppression.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group.

              In patients with persistent fever and neutropenia, amphotericin B is administered empirically for the early treatment and prevention of clinically occult invasive fungal infections. However, breakthrough fungal infections can develop despite treatment, and amphotericin B has substantial toxicity. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing liposomal amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy. The mean duration of therapy was 10.8 days for liposomal amphotericin B (343 patients) and 10.3 days for conventional amphotericin B (344 patients). The composite rates of successful treatment were similar (50 percent for liposomal amphotericin B and 49 percent for conventional amphotericin B) and were independent of the use of antifungal prophylaxis or colony-stimulating factors. The outcomes were similar with liposomal amphotericin B and conventional amphotericin B with respect to survival (93 percent and 90 percent, respectively), resolution of fever (58 percent and 58 percent), and discontinuation of the study drug because of toxic effects or lack of efficacy (14 percent and 19 percent). There were fewer proved breakthrough fungal infections among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (11 patients [3.2 percent]) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (27 patients [7.8 percent], P=0.009). With the liposomal preparation significantly fewer patients had infusion-related fever (17 percent vs. 44 percent), chills or rigors (18 percent vs. 54 percent), and other reactions, including hypotension, hypertension, and hypoxia. Nephrotoxic effects (defined by a serum creatinine level two times the upper limit of normal) were significantly less frequent among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (19 percent) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (34 percent, P<0.001). Liposomal amphotericin B is as effective as conventional amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with fever and neutropenia, and it is associated with fewer breakthrough fungal infections, less infusion-related toxicity, and less nephrotoxicity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Mycoses
                Mycoses
                Wiley
                0933-7407
                1439-0507
                July 19 2019
                July 19 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging‐Associated Diseases (CECAD) University of Cologne Cologne Germany
                [2 ]Department I of Internal Medicine ECMM Center of Excellence for Medical Mycology German Centre for Infection Research, Partner Site Bonn‐Cologne (DZIF) University of Cologne Cologne Germany
                [3 ]Clinical Trials Centre Cologne (ZKS Köln) University of Cologne Cologne Germany
                [4 ]Division of Infectious Diseases University of California San Diego San Diego CA USA
                [5 ]Division of Pulmonology and Section of Infectious Diseases Medical University of Graz Graz Austria
                [6 ]Division of Hygiene and Microbiology ECMM Excellence Center for Medical Mycology Medical University Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria
                [7 ]Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services ICPMR New South Wales Health Pathology Westmead Hospital Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Sydney Medical School The University of Sydney Sydney NSW Australia
                [8 ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control, and Employee Health University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA
                [9 ]Infectious Diseases Alfred Health and Monash University Melbourne VIC Australia
                [10 ]Departments of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and Internal Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases UC‐Davis Medical Center Sacramento CA USA
                Article
                10.1111/myc.12960
                6692208
                31254420
                e2cef682-b749-4cde-84dd-66f882dfa530
                © 2019

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article