Voriconazole Resistance and Mortality in Invasive Aspergillosis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Triazole resistance is an increasing problem in invasive aspergillosis (IA). Small case series show mortality rates of 50%-100% in patients infected with a triazole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, but a direct comparison with triazole-susceptible IA is lacking. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective cohort study (2011-2015) was conducted to compare mortality in patients with voriconazole-susceptible and voriconazole-resistant IA. Aspergillus fumigatus culture-positive patients were investigated to identify patients with proven, probable, and putative IA. Clinical characteristics, day 42 and day 90 mortality, triazole-resistance profiles, and antifungal treatments were investigated. RESULTS: Of 196 patients with IA, 37 (19%) harbored a voriconazole-resistant infection. Hematological malignancy was the underlying disease in 103 (53%) patients, and 154 (79%) patients were started on voriconazole. Compared with voriconazole-susceptible cases, voriconazole resistance was associated with an increase in overall mortality of 21% on day 42 (49% vs 28%; P = .017) and 25% on day 90 (62% vs 37%; P = .0038). In non-intensive care unit patients, a 19% lower survival rate was observed in voriconazole-resistant cases at day 42 (P = .045). The mortality in patients who received appropriate initial voriconazole therapy was 24% compared with 47% in those who received inappropriate therapy (P = .016), despite switching to appropriate antifungal therapy after a median of 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole resistance was associated with an excess overall mortality of 21% at day 42 and 25% at day 90 in patients with IA. A delay in the initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy was associated with increased overall mortality.

Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of agents for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal mucositis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, and no guideline possible. RESULTS: A total of 251 clinical studies across 29 interventions were examined. Panel members were able to make one new evidence-based negative recommendation; two new evidence-based suggestions, and one evidence-based change from previous guidelines. Firstly, the panel recommends against the use of misoprostol suppositories for the prevention of acute radiation-induced proctitis. Secondly, the panel suggests probiotic treatment containing Lactobacillus spp., may be beneficial for prevention of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with malignancies of the pelvic region. Thirdly, the panel suggests the use of hyperbaric oxygen as an effective means in treating radiation-induced proctitis. Finally, new evidence has emerged which is in conflict with our previous guideline surrounding the use of systemic glutamine, meaning that the panel is unable to form a guideline. No guideline was possible for any other agent, due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This updated review of the literature has allowed new recommendations and suggestions for clinical practice to be reached. This highlights the importance of regular updates.