Background and Aim of the study: invasive fungal infections (IFI) are a significant problem and a major cause of mortality and morbidity in pediatric oncohematological patients. Prevention of IFI through a prophylactic regimen and early treatment of the infection are crucial to reduce the severity of this event. Azoles, in particular posaconazole and isavuconazole, are key prophylactic and therapeutic agents in the management of IFI. However, studies describing their use in the pediatric population are limited. Materials and methods: Retrospective and monocentric study at the Oncology and Haematology Clinic of the University of Padua. All patients with oncohaematological disease aged between 3 months and 21 years who received posaconazole and isavuconazole in a prophylactic and/or therapeutic regimen from January 2017 to November 2021 were included. The group of patients who underwent primary prophylaxis with posaconazole was compared to a control group that received prophylaxis with liposomal amphotericin B (Lamb), currently in use. The efficacy and safety of posaconazole in primary prophylaxis were evaluated by comparing the rate of IFI that occurred during prophylaxis (breakthrough infections) and the appearance of side effects in the two groups. Then, the clinical efficacy of the therapeutic regimens and the side effects attributable to posaconazole and isavuconazole were descriptively analyzed. Results: 40 and 37 patients were analyzed to compare the prophylactic use of posaconazole and Lamb. The IFI breakthrough rate of the two populations overlaps (7.5% with posaconazole and 10.8% with Lamb). However, posaconazole was associated with fewer side effects than Lamb (10% with posaconazole and 62.2% with Lamb). At therapeutic dosage, posaconazole was predominantly administered in combination with other antifungals (71.4% of patients). In patients treated with posaconazole for an IFI, 71.4% had a complete clinical response, and the remaining 28.6% had a partial clinical response by the 12th week of treatment. None of the patients has gone through therapeutic failure. Side effects from using posaconazole were detected in 10% of prophylactic patients and 28.6% of patients receiving therapeutic dosage. Isavuconazole was used at therapeutic dosage, mainly in monotherapy (60% of patients). A complete therapeutic response was found within the 12th weeks in 70% of the cases; 30% of the cases went into therapeutic failure. The appearance of side effects due to the intake of isavuconazole occurred only at therapeutic dosage (20% of cases). Conclusions: Both posaconazole and isavuconazole are well tolerated in the pediatric population and have shown promising prophylactic and therapeutic properties. However, further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
Background e scopo dello studio: le infezioni fungine invasive (IFI) rappresentano un problema rilevante e una importante causa di mortalità e morbidità nei pazienti oncoematologici pediatrici. La prevenzione delle IFI attraverso la profilassi antifungina nonché il trattamento tempestivo dell’infezione sono fondamentali per ridurre la gravità di tale evento. Gli azoli, in particolare il posaconazolo e l’isavuconazolo, sono un’importante opzione profilattica e terapeutica nella gestione delle IFI. Tuttavia, gli studi che ne descrivono l’utilizzo nella popolazione pediatrica sono limitati. Questo studio propone di indagare l’efficacia e la sicurezza del posaconazolo e dell’isavuconazolo nella popolazione oncoematologica pediatrica. Materiali e metodi: il nostro è uno studio retrospettivo, monocentrico, condotto presso l’UOC di Oncoematologia Pediatrica del Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino di Padova. Sono stati inclusi tutti i pazienti con malattia oncoematologica di età compresa tra i 3 mesi e i 21 anni che hanno ricevuto terapia con posaconazolo e isavuconazolo in regime profilattico e/o terapeutico da gennaio 2017 a novembre 2021. Il gruppo di pazienti sottoposti a profilassi primaria con posaconazolo (profilassi precedentemente in uso) è stato confrontato con un gruppo di controllo sottoposto a dosaggio profilattico di amfotericina B liposomiale (LamB) (attualmente in uso presso il Reparto). L’efficacia e la sicurezza del posaconazolo nella profilassi primaria sono state valutate confrontando il tasso di IFI occorse durante la profilassi (“breakthrough infections”) e la comparsa di effetti collaterali. Sono stati, poi, analizzati in maniera descrittiva l’efficacia clinica in regime terapeutico e gli effetti collaterali imputabili all’utilizzo di posaconazolo e di isavuconazolo. Risultati: nel confronto fra uso profilattico di posaconazolo e LamB sono stati analizzati rispettivamente 40 e 37 pazienti. Il tasso di breakthrough IFI riscontrato è sovrapponibile nelle due popolazioni (7,5% con posaconazolo e 10,8% con LamB). Tuttavia, l’incidenza di effetti collaterali è stata del 10% per il posaconazolo (principalmente disturbi gastrointestinali) mentre del 62,2% per LamB (prevalentemente nefrotossicità). A dosaggio terapeutico, il posaconazolo è stato prevalentemente somministrato in associazione ad altri farmaci antifungini (71,4% dei pazienti). Il 71,4% dei pazienti che hanno ricevuto trattamento con posaconazolo ha avuto una risposta clinica completa entro la 12° settimana dall’inizio della terapia mentre il 28,6% una risposta clinica parziale. In nessun paziente è stato osservato un fallimento terapeutico. Gli effetti collaterali imputati all’utilizzo di posaconazolo sono stati rilevati nel 10% dei pazienti sottoposti a profilassi e nel 28,6% dei pazienti sottoposti a dosaggio terapeutico. L’isavuconazolo è stato utilizzato a dosaggio terapeutico principalmente in monoterapia (60% dei pazienti). È stata riscontrata entro la 12° settimana una risposta terapeutica completa nel 70% dei casi; nel 30% dei casi si è osservato un fallimento terapeutico. La comparsa di effetti collaterali riconducibili all’assunzione di isavuconazolo si è verificata solo in corso di dosaggio terapeutico (20% dei casi). Conclusioni: nella popolazione pediatrica sia il posaconazolo che l’isavuconazolo risultano ben tollerati e hanno mostrato una efficacia profilattica e terapeutica promettenti. Tuttavia, sono necessari studi più ampi per confermare questi dati.
Uso di posaconazolo ed isavuconazolo in oncoematologia pediatrica: esperienza di un ospedale di terzo livello in Italia
DELL'ANNA, LUCIA
2021/2022
Abstract
Background and Aim of the study: invasive fungal infections (IFI) are a significant problem and a major cause of mortality and morbidity in pediatric oncohematological patients. Prevention of IFI through a prophylactic regimen and early treatment of the infection are crucial to reduce the severity of this event. Azoles, in particular posaconazole and isavuconazole, are key prophylactic and therapeutic agents in the management of IFI. However, studies describing their use in the pediatric population are limited. Materials and methods: Retrospective and monocentric study at the Oncology and Haematology Clinic of the University of Padua. All patients with oncohaematological disease aged between 3 months and 21 years who received posaconazole and isavuconazole in a prophylactic and/or therapeutic regimen from January 2017 to November 2021 were included. The group of patients who underwent primary prophylaxis with posaconazole was compared to a control group that received prophylaxis with liposomal amphotericin B (Lamb), currently in use. The efficacy and safety of posaconazole in primary prophylaxis were evaluated by comparing the rate of IFI that occurred during prophylaxis (breakthrough infections) and the appearance of side effects in the two groups. Then, the clinical efficacy of the therapeutic regimens and the side effects attributable to posaconazole and isavuconazole were descriptively analyzed. Results: 40 and 37 patients were analyzed to compare the prophylactic use of posaconazole and Lamb. The IFI breakthrough rate of the two populations overlaps (7.5% with posaconazole and 10.8% with Lamb). However, posaconazole was associated with fewer side effects than Lamb (10% with posaconazole and 62.2% with Lamb). At therapeutic dosage, posaconazole was predominantly administered in combination with other antifungals (71.4% of patients). In patients treated with posaconazole for an IFI, 71.4% had a complete clinical response, and the remaining 28.6% had a partial clinical response by the 12th week of treatment. None of the patients has gone through therapeutic failure. Side effects from using posaconazole were detected in 10% of prophylactic patients and 28.6% of patients receiving therapeutic dosage. Isavuconazole was used at therapeutic dosage, mainly in monotherapy (60% of patients). A complete therapeutic response was found within the 12th weeks in 70% of the cases; 30% of the cases went into therapeutic failure. The appearance of side effects due to the intake of isavuconazole occurred only at therapeutic dosage (20% of cases). Conclusions: Both posaconazole and isavuconazole are well tolerated in the pediatric population and have shown promising prophylactic and therapeutic properties. However, further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Dell'Anna_Lucia.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
7.96 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
7.96 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/34842