Voriconazole plus terbinafine combination antifungal therapy for invasive Lomentospora prolificans infections: analysis of 41 patients from the FungiScope® registry 2008-2019.

OBJECTIVES: Lomentospora prolificans is an emerging cause of serious invasive fungal infections. Optimal treatment of these infections is unknown, although voriconazole-containing treatment regimens are considered the treatment of choice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of combination antifungal therapy for L. prolificans infections. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients with invasive L. prolificans infection diagnosed between 1 January 2008 and 9 September 2019 that were documented in the FungiScope® registry of rare invasive fungal infections. We compared clinical outcomes between antifungal treatment strategies. RESULTS: Over the study period, 41 individuals with invasive L. prolificans infection from eight different countries were documented in the FungiScope® registry. Overall, 17/40 (43%) had treatment response/stable disease and 21/40 (53%) had a fatal outcome attributed to invasive fungal infection. Combination antifungal therapy was associated with increased 28-day survival (15/24 survived versus 4/16 receiving monotherapy; p 0.027) and the combination voriconazole plus terbinafine trended to be associated with higher rates of treatment success (10/16, 63%, 95% CI 35%-85%) compared with other antifungal treatment regimens (7/24, 29%, 95% CI 13%-51%, p 0.053). In Kaplan-Meier survival analysis there was a higher survival probability in individuals receiving the voriconazole/terbinafine combination compared with other antifungal regimens (median survival 150 days versus 17 days). CONCLUSIONS: While overall mortality was high, combination antifungal treatment, and in particular combination therapy with voriconazole plus terbinafine may be associated with improved treatment outcomes compared with other antifungal regimens for the treatment of invasive L. prolificans infections.

Isavuconazole: A new broad-spectrum azole. Part 2: pharmacokinetics and clinical activity.

Isavuconazole, the active moiety of its prodrug isavuconazonium, is a new extended-spectrum triazole whose activity against yeasts, molds, including Aspergillus and mucorales, and dimorphic fungi has been shown in vitro and in preclinical models. The most relevant pharmacokinetics features are water-solubility of the prodrug, rapid cleavage of the prodrug into active moiety and cleavage product by plasmatic esterases, high oral bioavailability of isavuconazole with an extensive penetration into most tissues and a good safety profile even in case of renal impairment. The results of two main clinical studies have led to an approval by FDA and EMA in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and invasive mucormycosis. Isavuconazole is non-inferior to voriconazole in terms of response and survival in invasive aspergillosis and has shown improved safety and tolerability. Importantly, less hepatobiliary, skin and eye disorders have been reported in isavuconazole-treated patients. Isavuconazole has therefore been granted a grade A-I recommendation by the European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL) for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Efficacy has also been demonstrated in mucormycosis in an open-label study. Survival was similar to the survival of matched patients from the international Fungiscope registry and treated with an amphotericin B formulation. Isavuconazole failed to show non-inferiority to caspofungin in a large double-blind candidemia trial. The aim of this review is to give the reader an overview of the data available so far to support inclusion of isavuconazole in the anti-mold therapeutic arsenal.

Diagnosis and management of Aspergillus diseases: executive summary of the 2017 ESCMID-ECMM-ERS guideline.

The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the European Respiratory Society Joint Clinical Guidelines focus on diagnosis and management of aspergillosis. Of the numerous recommendations, a few are summarized here. Chest computed tomography as well as bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with suspicion of pulmonary invasive aspergillosis (IA) are strongly recommended. For diagnosis, direct microscopy, preferably using optical brighteners, histopathology and culture are strongly recommended. Serum and BAL galactomannan measures are recommended as markers for the diagnosis of IA. PCR should be considered in conjunction with other diagnostic tests. Pathogen identification to species complex level is strongly recommended for all clinically relevant Aspergillus isolates; antifungal susceptibility testing should be performed in patients with invasive disease in regions with resistance found in contemporary surveillance programmes. Isavuconazole and voriconazole are the preferred agents for first-line treatment of pulmonary IA, whereas liposomal amphotericin B is moderately supported. Combinations of antifungals as primary treatment options are not recommended. Therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly recommended for patients receiving posaconazole suspension or any form of voriconazole for IA treatment, and in refractory disease, where a personalized approach considering reversal of predisposing factors, switching drug class and surgical intervention is also strongly recommended. Primary prophylaxis with posaconazole is strongly recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving induction chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis is strongly recommended in high-risk patients. We strongly recommend treatment duration based on clinical improvement, degree of immunosuppression and response on imaging.

Cost effectiveness of posaconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in acute leukaemia patients for the French healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) patients are at high risk of suffering from invasive fungal infections (IFI). Posaconazole demonstrated higher efficacy than standard azole agents (SAA) in the prophylaxis of IFI in this population. The authors estimated the cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus SAA in France. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed to compare posaconazole with SAA with the results of a published clinical trial. Clinical events were modelled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from results of the clinical trial and from a dedicated survey on the costs of treating IFI using a retrospective chart review design. RESULTS: IFI treatment costs were estimated using medical files from 50 AML patients from six French centres, with a proven and probable IFI, who had been followed-up for 298 days on average. Direct costs directly related to IFI were estimated at €51,033, including extra costs of index hospitalisation, costs of antifungal therapy and additional hospitalisations related to IFI treatment. The model indicated that the healthcare costs for the posaconazole strategy were €5,223 (€2,697 for prophylaxis and €2,526 for IFI management), which was €859 less than the €6,083 in costs with SAA (€469 for prophylaxis and €5614 for IFI management). A sensitivity analysis indicated that there was an 80% probability that prophylaxis using the posaconazole strategy would be superior. CONCLUSION: The findings from this analysis suggest that posaconazole use is a clinically and economically dominant strategy in the prophylaxis of IFI in AML patients, given the usual limits of economic models and the uncertainty of costs estimates.