Antifungal prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy: When and how?

The growing pool of critically ill or immunocompromised patients leads to a constant increase of life-threatening invasive infections by fungi such as Aspergillus spp., Candida spp. and Pneumocystis jirovecii. In response to this, prophylactic and pre-emptive antifungal treatment strategies have been developed and implemented for high-risk patient populations. The benefit by risk reduction needs to be carefully weighed against potential harm caused by prolonged exposure against antifungal agents. This includes adverse effects and development of resistance as well as costs for the healthcare system. In this review, we summarise evidence and discuss advantages and downsides of antifungal prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment in the setting of malignancies such as acute leukaemia, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CAR-T cell therapy, and solid organ transplant. We also address preventive strategies in patients after abdominal surgery and with viral pneumonia as well as individuals with inherited immunodeficiencies. Notable progress has been made in haematology research, where strong recommendations regarding antifungal prophylaxis and pre-emptive treatment are backed by data from randomized controlled trials, whereas other critical areas still lack high-quality evidence. In these areas, paucity of definitive data translates into centre-specific strategies that are based on interpretation of available data, local expertise, and epidemiology. The development of novel immunomodulating anticancer drugs, high-end intensive care treatment and the development of new antifungals with new modes of action, adverse effects and routes of administration will have implications on future prophylactic and pre-emptive approaches.

Clinical Relevance of Anti-TNF Antibody Trough Levels and Anti-Drug Antibodies in Treating Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The majority of patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy develop anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), which might result in loss of treatment efficacy. Strict guidelines on measuring trough levels (TLs) and ADA in clinical routine do not exist. To provide real-world data, we took advantage of our tertiary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) center patient cohort and determined indicators for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and actual consequences in patient care. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data of 104 IBD patients treated with infliximab or adalimumab in our IBD clinic. Patients with TL and ADA measurements between June 2015 and February 2018 were included. RESULTS: The main reason for determining TL was increased clinical disease. Subtherapeutic TLs were found in 33 patients, therapeutic TLs in 33 patients, and supratherapeutic TLs in 38 patients. Adjustments in anti-TNF therapy occurred more frequently (p = 0.01) in patients with subtherapeutic TL (24 of 33 patients; 73%) as compared to patients with therapeutic and supratherapeutic TLs (26 of 71 patients; 37%). No correlation could be found between TL and disease activity (p = 0.16). Presence of ADA was found in 16 patients, correlated with the development of infusion reactions (OR: 10.6, RR: 5.4, CI: 2.9-38.6), and was associated with subtherapeutic TL in 15 patients (93.8%). Treatment adaptations were based on TL and/or ADA presence in 36 of 63 patients. CONCLUSIONS: TDM showed significant treatment adaptations in patients with subtherapeutic TL. Conversely, in patients with therapeutic and supratherapeutic TLs, reasons for adaptations were based on considerations other than TL, such as clinical disease activity. Further studies should focus on decision-making in patients presenting with supratherapeutic TL in remission.