Author
Dorothee Arenz
Other affiliations: University of Hamburg
Bio: Dorothee Arenz is an academic researcher from University of Cologne. The author has contributed to research in topics: Voriconazole & Clinical trial. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 17 publications receiving 684 citations. Previous affiliations of Dorothee Arenz include University of Hamburg.
Papers
More filters
Carlos III Health Institute1, University of Cologne2, University of Sydney3, Paris Descartes University4, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul5, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre6, Medical University of Graz7, University of California, San Diego8, University of Copenhagen9, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven10, University of Bologna11, University of the Witwatersrand12, RMIT University13, McGill University14, Hacettepe University15, University of Paris16, Utrecht University17, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences18, Tel Aviv University19, Hospital General de México20, Istituto Giannina Gaslini21, Mahidol University22, Federal University of São Paulo23, King's College, Aberdeen24, Comenius University in Bratislava25, Boston Children's Hospital26, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón27, Complutense University of Madrid28, University Hospital Heidelberg29, University of California, Los Angeles30, American University of Beirut31, Innsbruck Medical University32, University of Lausanne33, Catholic University of Korea34, Goethe University Frankfurt35, Erasmus University Rotterdam36, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens37, Monash University38, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro39, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart40, University of Health Sciences Antigua41, National Institutes of Health42, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre43, University of Pittsburgh44, University of Melbourne45, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre46, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre47, University of Southern California48, Duke University49, Singapore General Hospital50, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital51, Cardiff University52, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio53, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia54, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research55
TL;DR: Management of mucormycosis depends on recognising disease patterns and on early diagnosis, and limited availability of contemporary treatments burdens patients in low and middle income settings.
Abstract: Mucormycosis is a difficult to diagnose rare disease with high morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis is often delayed, and disease tends to progress rapidly. Urgent surgical and medical intervention is lifesaving. Guidance on the complex multidisciplinary management has potential to improve prognosis, but approaches differ between health-care settings. From January, 2018, authors from 33 countries in all United Nations regions analysed the published evidence on mucormycosis management and provided consensus recommendations addressing differences between the regions of the world as part of the "One World One Guideline" initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM). Diagnostic management does not differ greatly between world regions. Upon suspicion of mucormycosis appropriate imaging is strongly recommended to document extent of disease and is followed by strongly recommended surgical intervention. First-line treatment with high-dose liposomal amphotericin B is strongly recommended, while intravenous isavuconazole and intravenous or delayed release tablet posaconazole are recommended with moderate strength. Both triazoles are strongly recommended salvage treatments. Amphotericin B deoxycholate is recommended against, because of substantial toxicity, but may be the only option in resource limited settings. Management of mucormycosis depends on recognising disease patterns and on early diagnosis. Limited availability of contemporary treatments burdens patients in low and middle income settings. Areas of uncertainty were identified and future research directions specified.
842 citations
University of Cologne1, Cornell University2, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital3, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro4, Collaborative Drug Discovery5, University of California, San Diego6, Innsbruck Medical University7, University of Nizwa8, University of Genoa9, Federal University of São Paulo10, Masaryk University11, Goethe University Frankfurt12, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre13, Medical University of Graz14, University of Manchester15, Wayne State University16, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre17, University of Melbourne18, Heidelberg University19, Hamad Medical Corporation20, University of Exeter21, University of Hong Kong22, University of Minnesota23, University of Hamburg24, University of Belgrade25, University of Angers26, University of Colombo27, University of Delhi28, Radboud University Nijmegen29, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens30, Palacký University, Olomouc31, Federal University of Paraná32, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio33, Sheba Medical Center34, Trinity College, Dublin35, University of Toronto36, Universitas Kristen Indonesia37, University of Indonesia38
TL;DR: The One World One Guideline initiative as mentioned in this paper has been used to incorporate regional differences in the epidemiology and management of rare mold infections, including Fusarium, Lomentospora, Scedosporium, dematiaceous moulds, Rasamsonia, Schizophyllum, Scopulariopsis, Paecilomyces and Purpureocillium species.
Abstract: With increasing numbers of patients needing intensive care or who are immunosuppressed, infections caused by moulds other than Aspergillus spp or Mucorales are increasing. Although antifungal prophylaxis has shown effectiveness in preventing many invasive fungal infections, selective pressure has caused an increase of breakthrough infections caused by Fusarium, Lomentospora, and Scedosporium species, as well as by dematiaceous moulds, Rasamsonia, Schizophyllum, Scopulariopsis, Paecilomyces, Penicillium, Talaromyces and Purpureocillium species. Guidance on the complex multidisciplinary management of infections caused by these pathogens has the potential to improve prognosis. Management routes depend on the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic options. The present recommendations are part of the One World-One Guideline initiative to incorporate regional differences in the epidemiology and management of rare mould infections. Experts from 24 countries contributed their knowledge and analysed published evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of rare mould infections. This consensus document intends to provide practical guidance in clinical decision making by engaging physicians and scientists involved in various aspects of clinical management. Moreover, we identify areas of uncertainty and constraints in optimising this management.
117 citations
TL;DR: In AML patients undergoing induction chemotherapy, prophylactic oral voriconazole 200 mg twice daily resulted in trends towards reduced incidences of lung infiltrates and hepatosplenic candidiasis.
94 citations
TL;DR: In first-line treatment of invasive aspergillosis, daily doses of up to 200 mg caspofungin were well tolerated and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, and treatment was well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicity.
Abstract: Our objective was to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose of caspofungin for invasive aspergillosis (IA). The safety and pharmacokinetics of escalating dosages of caspofungin were investigated in IA. Eight patients each received caspofungin 70, 100, 150, or 200 mg once a day (QD). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as the same non-hematological treatment-related adverse event of grade ≥ 4 in 2 of 8 patients or ≥ 3 in 4 of 8 patients in a cohort. A total of 46 patients (median age, 61 years; 21 female; 89% with hematological malignancies) received caspofungin (9, 8, 9, and 20 patients in the 70-, 100-, 150-, and 200-mg cohorts) for a median of 24.5 days. Plasma pharmacokinetics were linear across the investigated dosages and followed a two-compartment model, with weight as the covariate on clearance and sex as the covariate on central volume of distribution. Simulated peak plasma concentrations at steady state ranged from 14.2 to 40.6 mg/liter (28%), trough concentrations from 4.1 to 11.8 mg/liter (58%), and area under the concentration-time curve from 175 to 500 mg/liter/h (32%) (geometric mean, geometric coefficient of variation). Treatment was well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicity. The rate of complete or partial responses was 54.3%, and the overall mortality at 12-week follow-up was 28.3%. In first-line treatment of invasive aspergillosis, daily doses of up to 200 mg caspofungin were well tolerated and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Pharmacokinetics was linear. Response rates were similar to those previously reported for voriconazole and liposomal amphotericin.
73 citations
TL;DR: Duration of neutropenia, high-dose cytarabine, prior antibiotic therapy and a partial response to the first IFI therapy were risk factors for recurrent IFI and should be considered in AML patients with prior pulmonary IFI undergoing further chemotherapy.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Intensive chemotherapy with severe neutropenia is associated with invasive fungal infections (IFIs) leading to high mortality rates. During leukaemia induction chemotherapy, IFI often prohibited further curative treatment, thus predisposing for leukaemia relapse. Continuing myelosuppressive chemotherapy after diagnosis of IFI has become feasible with the now expanding arsenal of safe and effective antifungals. Secondary prophylaxis of IFI is widely administered, but reliable data on outcome and risk factors for recurrent IFI during subsequent chemotherapy are not available. This study determines risk factors for recurrent IFI in leukaemia patients. METHODS: From 25 European cancer centres, 166 consecutive patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) and a recent history of proven or probable pulmonary IFI were included. Patients were followed for recurrence or breakthrough IFI during the subsequent chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: Of the 166 patients included, 69 (41.6%) were female, the median age was 53 years (range 2-81) the and 3 (1.8%) were <16 years. Recurrent IFI occurred in 26 patients (15.7%). Multiple logistic regressions yielded predisposing factors: duration of neutropenia [per additional day; odds ratio (OR) 1.043, confidence interval (CI) 1.008-1.078], high-dose cytarabine (OR 3.920, CI 1.120-12.706), number of antibiotics (per antibiotic; OR 1.504, CI 1.089-2.086), partial response as outcome of prior IFI (OR 4.037, CI 1.301-12.524) and newly diagnosed AML (OR 3.823, CI 0.953-15.340). Usage of high efficiency particulate air filter appeared protective (OR 0.198, CI 0.036-1.089). CONCLUSIONS: Duration of neutropenia, high-dose cytarabine, prior antibiotic therapy and a partial response to the first IFI therapy were risk factors for recurrent IFI and should be considered in AML patients with prior pulmonary IFI undergoing further chemotherapy.
70 citations
Cited by
More filters
Journal Article•
3,097 citations
University of Nebraska Medical Center1, University of Manitoba2, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center3, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center4, City of Hope National Medical Center5, University of Rochester6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, University of Minnesota8, University of Florida9
TL;DR: 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 and developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis.
Abstract: 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.
2,664 citations
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio1, University of California, Davis2, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust3, Harvard University4, Tufts University5, University of Strasbourg6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, Johns Hopkins University8, University of Minnesota9, University of Pittsburgh10, Roswell Park Cancer Institute11, Duke University12, Cornell University13, University of Florida14, National Institutes of Health15
TL;DR: IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
1,745 citations
University of Nebraska Medical Center1, University of Manitoba2, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center3, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center4, City of Hope National Medical Center5, University of Rochester6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, University of Minnesota8, University of Florida9
TL;DR: 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 and developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis.
Abstract: 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.
927 citations
Hacettepe University1, Boston Children's Hospital2, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven3, University of Bologna4, Radboud University Nijmegen5, University of Aberdeen6, European Respiratory Society7, Claude Bernard University Lyon 18, Cardiff University9, University Hospital of Lausanne10, University of Queensland11, Ghent University12, University of Paris13, Istituto Giannina Gaslini14, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research15, Carlos III Health Institute16, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens17, University of Rennes18, University Hospital Heidelberg19, University College London20, Goethe University Frankfurt21, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart22, McGill University23
TL;DR: Treatment duration for aspergillosis is strongly recommended based on clinical improvement, degree of immunosuppression and response on imaging, and in refractory disease, where a personalized approach considering reversal of predisposing factors, switching drug class and surgical intervention is also strongly recommended.
848 citations