Abstract
Abstract 4541
Limited data demonstrate to what extent preventing fungal exposures is effective in preventing infection and disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal duration of fluconazole prophylaxis in allogeneic recipients to prevent invasive disease with fluconazole-susceptible Candida species during neutropenia. Oral, nonabsorbable antifungal drugs might reduce superficial colonization and control local mucosal candidiasis, but have not been demonstrated to reduce invasive candidiasis. Anti-fungal prophylaxis is recommended in a subpopulation of autologous recipients with underlying hematologic malignancies with prolonged neutropenia and mucosal damage.
This is a retrospective study of 1007 SCT performed in our center between 1992 and 2009 in 809 consecutive patients, irrespective of diagnosis. HEPA filter and environmental monitoring (air, water, surfaces) are attributes of our transplant center.
The main characteristics of the patients are reported in Table 1. Systemic prophylaxis was used according to the guidelines (Table 2): fluconazole in the nineties, then itraconazole and from 2004 was either abolished or substituted with non-adsorbable prophylaxis in transplants with standard risk. Secondary prophylaxis was prescribed for high risk patients (with infectious fungal history, suggestive iconography, positive fungal biomarker). In 17 years our Center has never been colonized by mould. Only 3 probable aspergillosis infections and 4 proven fungal infections (fusarium, mucor and 2 aspergillosis) were diagnosed, all in allogeneic patients (2 haplotipical, 1 singenic, 1 sibiling, 1 MUD and 2 mismatched), resulting in death in all cases. No infection was documented in autologous setting, while the infection rate in allogenic setting was 3.6% with an incidence rate of 1.1 infection per 10000 transplants/year. These results are significantly lower than published reports.
Systemic antifungal prophylaxis should not be performed in autologous SCT patients. The abuse of systemic prophylaxis targeting yeasts has influenced the change of epidemiology in the transplant setting with prevalence of mould infections. The identification of high risk patients is useful to select patients for systemic antifungal or secondary prophylaxis to reducing overtreatment, incidence of resistant strains and costs.
Antifungal prophylaxis strategies: . | Autologous . | Allogeneic . |
---|---|---|
Number of patients | 809 | |
Sex (M/F) | 404/405 | |
Number of transplants | 1007 | |
Single transplant | 805 (79,9%) | |
>1 transplant | 202 (21,1%) | |
Transplants type | 787 (78,1%) | |
Autologous | 220 (29,9%) | |
Allogeneic | 210 (20,8%) | |
Disease: | ||
Acute Leukemia | 34 (3,4%) | |
Chronic Mielod Leukemia | 265 (26,2%) | |
Lymphoma | 239 (23,7%) | |
Myeloma | 205 (20,4%) | |
Solid Tumor | 55 (5,5%) | |
Others |
Antifungal prophylaxis strategies: . | Autologous . | Allogeneic . |
---|---|---|
Number of patients | 809 | |
Sex (M/F) | 404/405 | |
Number of transplants | 1007 | |
Single transplant | 805 (79,9%) | |
>1 transplant | 202 (21,1%) | |
Transplants type | 787 (78,1%) | |
Autologous | 220 (29,9%) | |
Allogeneic | 210 (20,8%) | |
Disease: | ||
Acute Leukemia | 34 (3,4%) | |
Chronic Mielod Leukemia | 265 (26,2%) | |
Lymphoma | 239 (23,7%) | |
Myeloma | 205 (20,4%) | |
Solid Tumor | 55 (5,5%) | |
Others |
Antifungal prophylaxis strategies: . | Autologous . | Allogeneic . |
---|---|---|
Secondary prophylaxis | 5 (0,6%) | 15 (6,8%) |
Systemic prophylaxis | 560 (71,1%) | 158 (71,8%) |
Non-absorbable prophylaxis | 189 (22,9%) | 41 (18,6%) |
No prophylaxis | 33 (4,4%) | 6 (2,6%) |
Antifungal drugs: | 319 (42,3%) | 65 |
Fluconazole | 235 (31,6%) | 91 |
Itraconazole | 4 (0,6%) | 0 |
Posaconazole | 2 (0,05%) | 2 |
Voriconazole | 3 (0.4%) | 2 |
Caspofungin | 2 (0.05%) | 13 |
Amphotericin liposomal | 181 (24%) | 39 |
Amphotericin suspension | 8 (1,1%) | 2 |
Oral Nystatin | 0 | 5 |
Fungal infection type and prophylaxis | ||
Aspergillosis (3 Amphotericin liposomal-secondary, 2 Itraconazole- systemic) | 0 | 1 |
Mucor (Fluconazole- systemic) | 0 | 1 |
Fusarium (Itraconazole- systemic) | 0/787 | 7/220 (3,1%) |
Fungal infection Rate |
Antifungal prophylaxis strategies: . | Autologous . | Allogeneic . |
---|---|---|
Secondary prophylaxis | 5 (0,6%) | 15 (6,8%) |
Systemic prophylaxis | 560 (71,1%) | 158 (71,8%) |
Non-absorbable prophylaxis | 189 (22,9%) | 41 (18,6%) |
No prophylaxis | 33 (4,4%) | 6 (2,6%) |
Antifungal drugs: | 319 (42,3%) | 65 |
Fluconazole | 235 (31,6%) | 91 |
Itraconazole | 4 (0,6%) | 0 |
Posaconazole | 2 (0,05%) | 2 |
Voriconazole | 3 (0.4%) | 2 |
Caspofungin | 2 (0.05%) | 13 |
Amphotericin liposomal | 181 (24%) | 39 |
Amphotericin suspension | 8 (1,1%) | 2 |
Oral Nystatin | 0 | 5 |
Fungal infection type and prophylaxis | ||
Aspergillosis (3 Amphotericin liposomal-secondary, 2 Itraconazole- systemic) | 0 | 1 |
Mucor (Fluconazole- systemic) | 0 | 1 |
Fusarium (Itraconazole- systemic) | 0/787 | 7/220 (3,1%) |
Fungal infection Rate |
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Author notes
Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.
This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account Close Modal