Anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia caused by Candida parapsilosis: Analysis of pooled data from six prospective clinical studies.

Concerns with echinocandin use for infections caused by Candida parapsilosis complex species have driven the need for data to support echinocandin clinical efficacy in such patients. Data from six prospective studies were pooled to assess efficacy and safety of anidulafungin in patients with candidaemia caused by C. parapsilosis. Patient-level data were pooled from patients with microbiologically confirmed candidaemia due to C. parapsilosis treated with anidulafungin. Patients received a 200 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose of anidulafungin (day 1) and 100 mg daily thereafter. IV treatment could be switched to oral azole therapy after ≥5 or ≥10 days. Primary endpoint was global response at end of IV therapy (EOIVT). Seventy patients had candidaemia caused by C. parapsilosis. Global response was 77.1% (95% CI: 67.3, 87.0) at EOIVT and 70.0% (95% CI: 59.3, 80.7) at end of treatment. Three of 55 isolates (with MICs available) were resistant to anidulafungin (MIC ≥8 mg/L). All-cause mortality was 5.7% (n=4/70) by day 14 and 14.3% (n=10/70) by day 28. IV anidulafungin was effective for the treatment of C. parapsilosis candidaemia in this population, consistent with efficacy previously demonstrated for other Candida species. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00496197, NCT00548262, NCT00537329, NCT00689338, NCT00806351, NCT00805740).

Ciprofloxacin prophylaxis in high risk neutropenic patients: effects on outcomes, antimicrobial therapy and resistance.

BACKGROUND: The use of quinolone prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients is considered standard of care but the development of resistance is a concern. Previous studies have focused mainly on quinolone resistance among patients receiving prophylaxis, with very few data reporting its impact on the hospital microbial epidemiology. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 329 episodes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adults, and compared two periods: 2005 (period 1, no prophylaxis, n=110) and 2006-2008 (period 2, ciprofloxacin prophylaxis, n=219). Outcomes analyzed were the frequency of febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and antimicrobial resistance to ciprofloxacin and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase [ESBL] production. We analyzed resistance rates (by patients-day) in the cohort, as well as in other patients (neutropenic and non-neutropenic, 11,975 patients-day) admitted to the hematology unit in the same period, taking into consideration the general resistance patterns in the hospital. RESULTS: Quinolone prophylaxis (period 2) resulted in fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (159/219 [73%] vs. 102/110 [93%], Chi-square 18.09, p = 0.00002), and bacteremia (49/219 [22] vs. 36/110 [33%], Chi-square 4.10, p = 0.04), shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (p = 0.0002) and hospitalization (p = 0.002), but more frequent use of carbapenems (79/219 [36%] vs. 15/110 [14%], Chi-square 18.06, p = 0.0002). In addition, period 2 was associated with higher rates of quinolone resistance (6.77 vs. 3.02 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.03). The rate of ESBL-producing enterobacteria in the two periods was slightly higher in patients receiving quinolone prophylaxis (1.27 vs. 0.38 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.26) as well as in the hematology unit overall (1.59 vs. 0.53 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.08), but remained stable in the whole hospital (0.53 vs. 0.56 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofloxacin prophylaxis was beneficial in high risk neutropenic patients, but important modifications in the prescription of carbapenems and on antimicrobial resistance patterns of isolates were observed. The importance of hospital or ward ecology must be taken into account when deciding for quinolone prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients.

Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Invasive candidosis is increasingly prevalent in seriously ill patients. Our aim was to compare micafungin with liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of adult patients with candidaemia or invasive candidosis. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, multinational non-inferiority study to compare micafungin (100 mg/day) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg per day) as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as both a clinical and a mycological response at the end of treatment. Primary analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106288. FINDINGS: 264 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment with micafungin; 267 were randomly assigned to receive liposomal amphotericin B. 202 individuals in the micafungin group and 190 in the liposomal amphotericin B group were included in the per-protocol analyses. Treatment success was observed for 181 (89.6%) patients treated with micafungin and 170 (89.5%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions, after stratification by neutropenic status at baseline, was 0.7% (95% CI -5.3 to 6.7). Efficacy was independent of the Candida spp and primary site of infection, as well as neutropenic status, APACHE II score, and whether a catheter was removed or replaced during the study. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events--including those that were serious or led to treatment discontinuation--with micafungin than there were with liposomal amphotericin B. INTERPRETATION: Micafungin was as effective as--and caused fewer adverse events than--liposomal amphotericin B as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis.

Successful treatment of oral lesions of chronic lichenoid graft-vs.-host disease by the addition of low-level laser therapy to systemic immunosuppression.

We report a case of severe oral stomatitis caused by lichenoid chronic graft-vs.-host disease in which low-level laser therapy applied to the oral mucosa, in addition to standard systemic immunosuppressive treatment, resulted in quick healing and symptomatic relief.