Prophylaxis and treatment of invasive fungal infections in hematological patients

Authors

  • Alessandro Busca U.O.A. Ematologia, Azienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Battista, Torino
  • Anna Candoni Clinica di Ematologia e Trapianto di Midollo Osseo, Università degli Studi di Udine
  • Livio Pagano Malattie del sangue, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma
  • Francesco Scaglione Dipartimento di Farmacologia, Chemioterapia e Tossicologia Medica, Università degli Studi di Milano
  • Claudio Viscoli Clinica di Malattie Infettive, Università degli Studi di Genova

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7175/rhc.v3i1S.430

Keywords:

Prophylaxis, Therapy, Invasive fungal disease

Abstract

The evidence from the literature strongly support antifungal prophylaxis in high risk haematological patients, such as patients with AML during remission induction chemotherapy and alloHSCT patients. Current antifungal prophylaxis guidelines for high risk patients recommend azoles (fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole) and echinocandins (micafungin) with the strongest level of evidence. In terms of treatment, the choice between empiric therapy (or fever driven) and pre-emptive therapy (or diagnostic driven) is still debated. Not a single therapeutic strategy is appropriate in every patients, in particular empirical antifungal therapy may be recommended in patients at very high risk, while a pre-emptive approach may be advised for those at standard risk. In order to exploit the synergistic and/or additive effect of two antifungal drugs it’s possible to combine two agents that work with different mechanisms of action (e.g. echinocandins + azoles or polyenes). Once the treatment has been initiated we should consider the therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the drugs, especially when the pharmacokinetic variability is high and the dose-concentration effect relationships is not predictable (e.g. for itraconazole, voriconazole and posaconazole).

Downloads

Published

2012-10-29

Issue

Section

Supplement