Journals / Türkiye'de Lösemi Lenfoma Miyelom Araştırmaları / 2020 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

Retrospective Evaluation of Patients with and without Primary Antifungal Prophylaxis During Remission Induction Chemotherapy in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Akut Miyeloid Lösemi Tanılı Hastalarda Remisyon İndüksiyon Kemoterapisi Döneminde Primer Antifungal Profilaksi Alan ve Almayan Hastaların Retrospektif Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
1–9
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Primary antifungal prophylaxis is recommended in remission induction chemotherapy, which has a high risk for devoloping invasive fungal infections.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Invasive fungal infections (IFI) was seen as the most important cause of mortality in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In our study, we examined the relationship between posaconazole prophylaxis and the development of invasive fungal infection, decreased antifungal therapy and survival.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Primary antifungal prophylaxis is recommended in remission induction chemotherapy, which has a high risk for devoloping invasive fungal infections.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Invasive fungal infections (IFI) was seen as the most important cause of mortality in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. Primary antifungal prophylaxis is recommended in remission induction chemotherapy, which has a high risk for devoloping invasive fungal infections. In our study, we examined the relationship between posaconazole prophylaxis and the development of invasive fungal infection, decreased antifungal therapy and survival. Patients and Methods: We included 71 adult AML patients who received remission induction therapy in our study. We compared the results of patients receiving and not receiving posaconazole prophylaxis. Results: Fourty of all patients used posaconazole as the primary antifungal prophylaxis and 31 patients didn’t receive. When the antifungal duration of the patients was compared, the total duration of parenteral therapeutic antifungal treatment in patients receiving primary antifungal prophylaxis was 9.9 ± 10.4 days. We were detected 21.4 ± 14.8 day in the non-prophylactic group. The need for therapeutic antifungal therapy was significantly lower in patients who were recieved primary antifungal prophylaxis (p= 0.001). When we compared the total usage time of prophylactic agent and parenteral therapeutic antifungal therapy; in the primary antifungal prophylaxis group it was 26.9 ± 9.7 days. It found 21.4 ± 14.8 day in the non-prophylactic group. There was no significant difference between the the total usage time of prophylactic agent and parenteral therapeutic antifungal therapy in this groups (p= 0.057). When the median survival times were compared, there was no significant difference between the patient groups in terms of survival (p= 0.61). Conclusion: There is need for studies that composed of more patients to improve primary antifungal therapy in high risk patients for IFI.

Özet

Amaç: Akut miyeloid lösemi (AML) hastalarında gelişen invaziv fungal enfeksiyonlar (İFE)mortalitenin en önemli nedeni olarak görülmektedir. İFE gelişimi için yüksek riskli dönem olanindüksiyon tedavisi döneminde hastalara primer antifungal profilaksi önerilmektedir. Bu çalışmada,posakonazol profilaksisi ile İFE gelişimi, antifungal tedavi ihtiyacındaki azalma ve sağkalımarasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlandı.Hastalar ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya remisyon/indüksiyon tedavisi alan 71 erişkin AML hastası dahiledildi. Posakonazol profilaksisi alan ve almayan hastaların sonuçları karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Tüm hastaların 40’ı primer antifungal profilaksi olarak posakonazol kullanmakta olup,31 hasta profilaksi almamıştır. Hastaların antifungal süreleri karşılaştırıldığında primer antifungalprofilaksi alan hastalarda toplam parenteral terapötik antifungal tedavi süresi 9.9 ± 10.4 gündü.Profilaksi almayan grupta ise 21.4 ± 14.8 gün olarak saptanmıştır. Primer antifungal profilaksialan hastalarda terapötik antifungal tedavi süresi anlamlı ölçüde kısa bulunmuştur (p= 0.001).Hastaların profilaksi ajan kullanım süresi ve terapötik parenteral antifungal tedavi sürelerinin toplamınabakıldığında ise primer antifungal profilaksi alan grupta 26.9 ± 9.7 gün, almayan gruptaise 21.4 ± 14.8 gün olarak saptanmıştır. Her iki grup arasında profilaksi ve terapötik parenteralantifungal kullanım süreleri toplamı arasında belirgin farklılık yoktu (p= 0.057). Median sağkalımsürelerine göre karşılaştırıldığında hasta grupları arasında sağkalım yönünden anlamlı bir farklılıkgörülmemiştir (p= 0.61).Sonuç: İnvaziv fungal enfeksiyonlar açısından yüksek riskli hastalarda primer antifungal tedavistratejilerinin geliştirilmesi için çok sayıda hasta içeren çalışmanın yapılmasına ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

MUTLAY, F., SEVİNDİK, Ö. G., SOLMAZ, Ş., ACAR, C., ALPÇAVUŞ, S., SEYHANLI, A., ÖZCAN, M. A., DEMİRKAN, F., ÖZSAN, G. H., ÜNDAR, B., ALACACIOĞLU, İ. (2020). Retrospective Evaluation of Patients with and without Primary Antifungal Prophylaxis During Remission Induction Chemotherapy in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Türkiye'de Lösemi Lenfoma Miyelom Araştırmaları, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 1–9. https://ajindex.com/articles/394622

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ullmann AJ, Lipton JH, Vesole DH, Chandrasekar P, Langston A, Tarantolo SR, et al. Posaconazole or flucanazole for prophylaxis in severe graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:335-47
  2. Pagano L, Caira M. The role of primary antifungal prophyplaxis with heamatological malignancies. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20(Suppl 6):19-26
  3. Walsh TJ, Anaissie EJ, Denning DW, Herbrecht R, Kontoyiannis DP, Marr KA, et al. Treatment of aspergillosis: clinical practise guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:327-60
  4. Girmenia C, Frustaci AM, Gentile G, Minotti C, Cartoni C, Capria S, et al. Posaconazole prophylaxis during front-line chemotherapy of acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center, real life experience. Haematologica 2012;97:560-7
  5. Peterson L, Ostermann J, Rieger H, Ostermann H, Rieger CT. Posaconazole prophylaxis-impact on incidence of invazive fungal disease and antifungal treatment in haematological patients. Mycoses 2013;56(6):651-8
  6. Cattaneo C, Panzali A, Passi A, Borlenghi E, Lamorgese C, Petullà M, et al. Serum posaconazole levels during acute myeloid leukaemia induction therapy: correlations with breakthrough invazive fungal infections. Mycoses 2015;58(6):362-7
  7. Dahlen T, Kalin M, Cederlund K, Nortlander A, Björkholm M, Ljulgman P, et al. Decreased invazive fungal disease but no impact on overall survival by posaconazole compared to flucanazole prophylaxis: a retrospective cohort study in patients receiving induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemi/myelodysplastic syndromes. Eur J Haematol 2015;96:175-80
  8. Pizzo PA, Robichaud KJ, Gill FA, Witebsky FG. Empiric antibiotic and antifungal therapy for cancer patients with prolonged fever granulocytopenia. Am J Med 1982;72:101-11
  9. Mahfouz T, Amaissie E. Prevention of fungal infections in the immuncompremised host. Curr Opin Drugs 2003;4:974-90
  10. Matutes E, Morilla R, Farahat N, Carbonell F, Swansburyy J, Dyer MJS, et al. Definition of acute biphenotypic leukemia. Haematologica 1997;82:64-6
  11. Özkocaman V, Özkalemkaş F, Seyhan S, Ener B, Ursavaş A, Ersal T, et al. The outcome of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center study. Turk J Hematol 2018;35:277-82
  12. Metan G, Türe Z, Pala Ç, Kaynar L, Yıldırım A, Elmalı F, et al. A single center experience for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2015;31(3):339-45