Safety and Efficacy of Intermittent High-Dose Liposomal Amphotericin B Antifungal Prophylaxis in Haemato-Oncology: An Eight-Year Single-Centre Experience and Review of the Literature.

Triazoles remain first-line agents for antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk haemato-oncology patients, but their use is increasingly contraindicated due to drug-drug interactions and additive toxicities with novel treatments. In this retrospective, single-centre, observational study, we present our eight-year experience of antifungal prophylaxis using intermittent high-dose liposomal Amphotericin B (L-AmB). All adults identified through our Antifungal Stewardship Programme as receiving L-AmB prophylaxis at 7.5 mg/kg once-weekly between February 2012 and January 2020 were included. Adverse reactions, including infusion reactions, electrolyte loss, and nephrotoxicity, were recorded. 'Breakthrough' invasive fungal infection (IFI) occurring within four weeks of L-AmB was classified using 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) criteria. Moreover, 114 courses of intermittent high-dose L-AmB prophylaxis administered to 92 unique patients were analysed. Hypokalaemia was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event, with 26 (23%) courses. Grade 3 nephrotoxicity occurred in 8 (7%) and reversed in all six patients surviving to 90 days. There were two (1.8%) episodes of breakthrough IFI, one 'probable' and one 'possible'. In this study, the largest evaluation of intermittent high-dose L-AmB prophylaxis conducted to date, toxicity was manageable and reversible and breakthrough IFI was rare. L-AmB prophylaxis represents a viable alternative for patients with a contraindication to triazoles.

Effectiveness of an antifungal stewardship programme at a London teaching hospital 2010-16.

Background: The need for antifungal stewardship is gaining recognition with increasing incidence of invasive fungal infection (IFI) and antifungal resistance alongside the high cost of antifungal drugs. Following an audit showing suboptimal practice we initiated an antifungal stewardship programme and prospectively evaluated its impact on clinical and financial outcomes. Patients and methods: From October 2010 to September 2016, adult inpatients receiving amphotericin B, echinocandins, intravenous fluconazole, flucytosine or voriconazole were reviewed weekly by an infectious diseases consultant and antimicrobial pharmacist. Demographics, diagnosis by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria, drug, indication, advice, acceptance and in-hospital mortality were recorded. Antifungal consumption and expenditure, and candidaemia species and susceptibility data were extracted from pharmacy and microbiology databases. Results: A total of 432 patients were reviewed, most commonly receiving AmBisome® (35%) or intravenous fluconazole (29%). Empirical treatment was often unnecessary, with 82% having no evidence of IFI. Advice was given in 64% of reviews (most commonly de-escalating or stopping treatment) and was followed in 84%. Annual antifungal expenditure initially reduced by 30% (£0.98 million to £0.73 million), then increased to 20% above baseline over a 5 year period; this was a significantly lower rise compared with national figures, which showed a doubling of expenditure over the same period. Inpatient mortality, Candida species distribution and rates of resistance were not adversely affected by the intervention. Conclusions: Provision of specialist input to optimize antifungal prescribing resulted in significant cost savings without compromising on microbiological or clinical outcomes. Our model is readily implementable by hospitals with high numbers of at-risk patients and antifungal expenditure.