Empiric vs Preemptive Antifungal Strategy in High-Risk Neutropenic Patients on Fluconazole Prophylaxis: A Randomized Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

28Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Empiric antifungal therapy is considered the standard of care for high-risk neutropenic patients with persistent fever. The impact of a preemptive, diagnostic-driven approach based on galactomannan screening and chest computed tomography scan on demand on survival and on the risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) during the first weeks of high-risk neutropenia is unknown. Methods: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients were randomly assigned to receive caspofungin empirically (arm A) or preemptively (arm B), while receiving fluconazole 400 mg daily prophylactically. The primary end point of this noninferiority study was overall survival (OS) 42 days after randomization. Results: Of 556 patients recruited, 549 were eligible: 275 in arm A and 274 in arm B. Eighty percent of the patients had AML or MDS requiring high-dose chemotherapy, and 93% of them were in the first induction phase. At day 42, the OS was not inferior in arm B (96.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 93.8%-98.3%) when compared with arm A (93.1%; 95% CI, 89.3%-95.5%). The rates of IFDs at day 84 were not significantly different, 7.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.8%) in arm B vs 6.6% (95% CI, 3.6%-9.5%) in arm A. The rate of patients who received caspofungin was significantly lower in arm B (27%) than in arm A (63%; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Maertens, J., Lodewyck, T., Donnelly, J. P., Chantepie, S., Robin, C., Blijlevens, N., … Cordonnier, C. (2023). Empiric vs Preemptive Antifungal Strategy in High-Risk Neutropenic Patients on Fluconazole Prophylaxis: A Randomized Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 76(4), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac623

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free