BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. METHODS: After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. RESULTS: The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. CONCLUSIONS: These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.

http://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstream/10495/24087/1/RestrepoAngela_2008_DefinitionsInvasiveCancer.pdf

Revised Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group

Guidelines for the management of patients with invasive candidiasis and mucosal candidiasis were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace the previous guidelines published in the 15 January 2004 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases and are intended for use by health care providers who care for patients who either have or are at risk of these infections. Since 2004, several new antifungal agents have become available, and several new studies have been published relating to the treatment of candidemia, other forms of invasive candidiasis, and mucosal disease, including oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis. There are also recent prospective data on the prevention of invasive candidiasis in high-risk neonates and adults and on the empiric treatment of suspected invasive candidiasis in adults. This new information is incorporated into this revised document.

https://www.easy-immune-health.com/support-files/clin_practice_guidelines_candidiasis.pdf

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

http://caprockhematology.com/Site/AML_and_ALL_files/AML%20Review%20Blood%202010.pdf

Diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in adults: recommendations from an international expert panel, on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet.

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

/pdf/clinical-practice-guideline-for-the-use-of-antimicrobial-1cdrjevze2.pdf

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Aspergillus species have emerged as an important cause of life-threatening infections in immunocompromised patients. This expanding population is composed of patients with prolonged neutropenia, advanced HIV infection, and inherited immunodeficiency and patients who have undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and/or lung transplantation. This document constitutes the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America for treatment of aspergillosis and replaces the practice guidelines for Aspergillus published in 2000 [1]. The objective of these guidelines is to summarize the current evidence for treatment of different forms of aspergillosis. The quality of evidence for treatment is scored according to a standard system used in other Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. This document reviews guidelines for management of the 3 major forms of aspergillosis: invasive aspergillosis, chronic (and saprophytic) forms of aspergillosis, and allergic forms of aspergillosis. Given the public health importance of invasive aspergillosis, emphasis is placed on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the different forms of invasive aspergillosis, including invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, sinus aspergillosis, disseminated aspergillosis, and several types of single-organ invasive aspergillosis. There are few randomized trials on the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. The largest randomized controlled trial demonstrates that voriconazole is superior to deoxycholate amphotericin B (D-AMB) as primary treatment for invasive aspergillosis. Voriconazole is recommended for the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis in most patients (A-I). Although invasive pulmonary aspergillosis accounts for the preponderance of cases treated with voriconazole, voriconazole has been used in enough cases of extrapulmonary and disseminated infection to allow one to infer that voriconazole is effective in these cases. A randomized trial comparing 2 doses of liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) showed similar efficacy in both arms, suggesting that liposomal therapy could be considered as alternative primary therapy in some patients (A-I). For salvage therapy, agents include lipid formulations of amphotericin (LFAB; A-II), posaconazole (B-II), itraconazole (B-II), caspofungin (B-II), or micafungin (B-II). Salvage therapy for invasive aspergillosis poses important challenges with significant gaps in knowledge. In patients whose aspergillosis is refractory to voriconazole, a paucity of data exist to guide management. Therapeutic options include a change of class using an amphotericin B (AMB) formulation or an echinocandin, such as caspofungin (B-II); further use of azoles should take into account host factors and pharmacokinetic considerations. Refractory infection may respond to a change to another drug class (B-II) or to a combination of agents (B-II). The role of combination therapy in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis as primary or salvage therapy is uncertain and warrants a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Assessment of patients with refractory aspergillosis may be difficult. In evaluating such patients, the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis should be established if it was previously uncertain and should be confirmed if it was previously known. The drug dosage should be considered. Management options include a change to intravenous (IV) therapy, therapeutic monitoring of drug levels, change of drug class, and/or combination therapy. Antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole can be recommended in the subgroup of HSCT recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) who are at high risk for invasive aspergillosis and in neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome who are at high risk for invasive aspergillosis (A-I). Management of breakthrough invasive aspergillosis in the context of mould-active azole prophylaxis is not defined by clinical trial data. The approach to such patients should be individualized on the basis of clinical criteria, including host immunosuppression, underlying disease, and site of infection, as well as consideration of antifungal dosing, therapeutic monitoring of drug levels, a switch to IV therapy, and/or a switch to another drug class (B-III). Certain conditions of invasive aspergillosis warrant consideration for surgical resection of the infected focus. These include but are not limited to pulmonary lesions contiguous with the heart or great vessels, invasion of the chest wall, osteomyelitis, pericardial infection, and endocarditis (B-III). Restoration of impaired host defenses is critical for improved outcome of invasive aspergillosis (A-III). Recovery from neutropenia in a persistently neutropenic host or reduction of corticosteroids in a patient receiving high-dose glucocorticosteroids is paramount for improved outcome in invasive aspergillosis. A special consideration is made concerning recommendations for therapy of aspergillosis in uncommon sites, such as osteomyelitis and endocarditis. There are very limited data on these infections, and most involve D-AMB as primary therapy simply because of its long-standing availability. Based on the strength of the randomized study, the panel recommends voriconazole for primary treatment of these very uncommon manifestations of invasive aspergillosis (B-III). Management of the chronic or saprophytic forms of aspergillosis varies depending on the condition. Single pulmonary aspergillomas may be best managed by surgical resection (B-III), whereas chronic cavitary and chronic necrotizing pulmonary aspergillosis require long-term medical therapy (B-III). The management of allergic forms of aspergillosis involves a combination of medical and anti-inflammatory therapy. For example, management of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) involves the administration of itraconazole and corticosteroids (A-I). © 2008 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.

/pdf/treatment-of-aspergillosis-clinical-practice-guidelines-of-22h30ces3m.pdf

Treatment of Aspergillosis: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Background Patients with neutropenia resulting from chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or the myelodysplastic syndrome are at high risk for difficult-to-treat and often fatal invasive fungal infections. Methods In this randomized, multicenter study involving evaluators who were unaware of treatment assignments, we compared the efficacy and safety of posaconazole with those of fluconazole or itraconazole as prophylaxis for patients with prolonged neutropenia. Patients received prophylaxis with each cycle of chemotherapy until recovery from neutropenia and complete remission, until occurrence of an invasive fungal infection, or for up to 12 weeks, whichever came first. We compared the incidence of proven or probable invasive fungal infections during treatment (the primary end point) between the posaconazole and fluconazole or itraconazole groups; death from any cause and time to death were secondary end points. Results A total of 304 patients were randomly assigned to receive posaconazole, and 298 ...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa061094

Posaconazole vs. Fluconazole or Itraconazole Prophylaxis in Patients with Neutropenia

Background: We evaluated safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate at the 200-mg once-daily dose approved for 6-day treatment of skin and skin-structure infections.Research design and methods:...

Clinical safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

http://www.thelancet.com/article/S235239642200319X/pdf

Safety and immunogenicity of intramuscular, single-dose V590 (rVSV-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine) in healthy adults: Results from a phase 1 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial

We read with interest Lee & Caffrey’s paper ([1][1]) comparing thrombocytopenia events in association with tedizolid and linezolid from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a database of voluntary spontaneous AE reports submitted to the FDA (<https://www.fda.gov/drugs/

Cathy Hardalo

Papers

Posaconazole vs. Fluconazole or Itraconazole Prophylaxis in Patients with Neutropenia

Clinical safety and tolerability of tedizolid phosphate in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

Safety and immunogenicity of intramuscular, single-dose V590 (rVSV-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine) in healthy adults: Results from a phase 1 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial

Myelosuppression with Oxazolidinones: Are There Differences?