Fluconazole vs. amphotericin B for the treatment of neonatal fungal septicemia: a prospective randomized trial. Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group. Use of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion in children. Randomized trial of fluconazole versus low-dose amphotericin B in prophylaxis against fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A randomized comparison of fluconazole with amphotericin B as empiric anti-fungal agents in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. Empiric antifungal therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Liposomal amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of documented and suspected neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for pediatric patients with invasive candidiasis: substudy of a randomized double-blind trial. Liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome) in the prophylaxis of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Fungal septicemia is a devastating disease in the neonate, especially in the low birth weight preterm infant who is especially vulnerable to disseminated fungal sepsis. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and overall convenience of fluconazole vs. amphotericin B for the treatment of disseminated fungal sepsis in neonates.
                A prospective, randomized, collaborative study conducted at two South African neonatal units.
                Twenty-four infants with proven fungal septicemia were treated from June, 1992, to June, 1993. Twelve received fluconazole, 11 received amphotericin B and 1 was excluded. Assessment of hepatic, renal and hematologic functions were performed before, during and after treatment. The two groups were comparable at the time of enrollment into the study.
                Infants receiving amphotericin B had significantly higher values of total and direct bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase values at the end of treatment, while the fluconazole group showed a significant increase in the platelet count. The cumulative total numbers of days receiving intravenous therapy for the administration of antifungal drugs were 57 for the fluconazole group and 162 for the amphotericin group; no central lines were needed in the fluconazole group, whereas 3 babies given amphotericin B had central catheters for a cumulative total of 27 days. The case fatality rate was 33% in the fluconazole group and 45% in the amphotericin B group; there was still proof of fungal septicemia at the time of death in 1 patient given amphotericin B and 2 given fluconazole.
                Fluconazole showed fewer side effects than amphotericin B and was more convenient to use. In patients with persistent fever and neutropenia, amphotericin B is administered empirically for the early treatment and prevention of clinically occult invasive fungal infections. However, breakthrough fungal infections can develop despite treatment, and amphotericin B has substantial toxicity.
                We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing liposomal amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy.
                The mean duration of therapy was 10.8 days for liposomal amphotericin B (343 patients) and 10.3 days for conventional amphotericin B (344 patients). The composite rates of successful treatment were similar (50 percent for liposomal amphotericin B and 49 percent for conventional amphotericin B) and were independent of the use of antifungal prophylaxis or colony-stimulating factors. The outcomes were similar with liposomal amphotericin B and conventional amphotericin B with respect to survival (93 percent and 90 percent, respectively), resolution of fever (58 percent and 58 percent), and discontinuation of the study drug because of toxic effects or lack of efficacy (14 percent and 19 percent). There were fewer proved breakthrough fungal infections among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (11 patients [3.2 percent]) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (27 patients [7.8 percent], P=0.009). With the liposomal preparation significantly fewer patients had infusion-related fever (17 percent vs. 44 percent), chills or rigors (18 percent vs. 54 percent), and other reactions, including hypotension, hypertension, and hypoxia. Nephrotoxic effects (defined by a serum creatinine level two times the upper limit of normal) were significantly less frequent among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (19 percent) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (34 percent, P<0.001).
                Liposomal amphotericin B is as effective as conventional amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with fever and neutropenia, and it is associated with fewer breakthrough fungal infections, less infusion-related toxicity, and less nephrotoxicity. To describe the experience with a new lipid-based amphotericin product (amphotericin B colloidal dispersion or ABCD) in children with fever and neutropenia who are at high risk for fungal infection.
                Forty-nine children with febrile neutropenia were treated in a prospective, randomized trial comparing ABCD with amphotericin B. An additional 70 children with presumed or proven fungal infection were treated with 5 different open-label studies of ABCD. Patients were registered into these studies for reasons of: 1) failure to respond to amphotericin B; 2) development of nephrotoxicity or preexisting renal impairment; or 3) willingness to participate in a dose-escalation study. Extensive data detailing response and toxicity were collected from each patient.
                In the randomized trial, there was significantly less renal toxicity in the children receiving ABCD than in those receiving amphotericin B (12.0% vs. 52.4% [P = 0.003]). Other adverse symptoms were not significantly different. In the additional open-label studies, although 80% of patients receiving ABCD reported some adverse symptom, the majority of these were infusion related, and nephrotoxicity was reported in only 12% of these patients.
                ABCD was well-tolerated at doses up to 5 times greater then those usually tolerated with amphotericin B. Renal toxicity was markedly less than expected, and there were no other unexpected severe toxicities. Further randomized studies are needed to further define the role of this and other liposomal products in children. Over the past decade, invasive fungal infections have become an increasingly important problem in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The optimal approach for prophylactic antifungal therapy has yet to be determined. To resolve this issue, we performed a prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of fluconazole (FL) versus low-dose amphotericin B (AmB) in preventing fungal infections during the first 100 days after HSCT. Patients undergoing allogenic or autologous HSCT were randomized to receive fluconazole 200 mg/day PO or amphotericin B 0.2 mg/kg/day IV beginning 1 day prior to commencement of conditioning regimen and continuing until engraftment, drug-associated toxicity was suspected, or systemic fungal infection was suspected or proven. High-dose amphotericin B (0.5-1.0 mg/kg/day) was started for patients with suspected or proven fungal infections. From January 1993 to December 1998, a total of 186 patients were enrolled into the trial, with 100 receiving FL and 86 receiving AmB. Eighty (43%) patients were removed from prophylaxis for persistent fever despite broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy or suspected fungal infections (FL 46 vs. AmB 34, P > 0.05). The incidence of proven fungal infections (FL 12% vs. AmB 12.8%), suspected fungal infections (FL 4% vs. AmB 2.3%), superficial fungal infections (FL 1% vs. AmB 4.6%) did not show any significant difference. The survival at 100 days post transplant was similar between the 2 groups (FL 78% vs. AmB 70%, P = 0.254). Death attributable to fungal infections was similar in both groups (6% vs. 7%, P > 0.05). We conclude that fluconazole is as effective as low-dose amphotericin B in prophylaxis against fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation.
                Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Several studies have documented the efficacy of amphotericin B as empiric antifungal therapy in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. Amphotericin, however, is a toxic drug. Fluconazole has broad-spectrum antifungal activity with an excellent safety profile. Although prophylactic use of fluconazole is widespread, its efficacy as an empiric antifungal agent has not been extensively investigated.
                We randomly assigned 106 patients with absolute neutropenia (< or = 500 cells microL) and persistent fever of undetermined origin (> 38 degrees C) despite 1 week of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy to receive either fluconazole 400 mg orally daily or amphotericin B 0.5 mg/kg/day. Patients with obvious invasive fungal infections were excluded, as were those with abnormal renal or hepatic function. Success was defined as defervescence with the initially assigned antifungal regimen without development of clinically evident invasive fungal infection.
                Six patients were excluded from the analysis, mostly because they did not have severe neutropenia. Forty-eight patients received amphotericin B, and 52 received fluconazole. Baseline clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters as well as duration of neutropenia (7.7 versus 6.9 days), duration of fever (7.8 versus 8.1 days), and duration of hospitalization (10.4 versus 8.3 days) were similar between those receiving amphotericin and fluconazole. Treatment success rates and mortality rates were similar in the two groups: 22 (46%) patients in the amphotericin group and 29 (56%) patients in the fluconazole group responded successfully to therapy (P = 0.3), whereas 16 (33%) patients in the amphotericin group and 14 (27%) patients in the fluconazole group died during hospitalization (P = 0.5). Adverse events such as chills and fever (4 versus 1), bronchospasm (2 versus none), severe hypokalemia (25 versus 12) and nephrotoxicity (9 versus 3) were more frequently observed in patients receiving amphotericin. Adverse prognostic factors included prolonged duration of neutropenia and pneumonia.
                These results suggest that fluconazole is an equally effective but less toxic alternative to amphotericin B as empiric antifungal therapy in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. The optimal management of fever in granulocytopenic patients remains controversial. Invasive fungal infections are common and life-threatening but are difficult to diagnose early. In this randomized study, we investigated the potential value of empiric administration of amphotericin B (versus no empiric antifungal therapy) in 132 patients remaining febrile and granulocytopenic despite broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy for four days.
                The patients were divided into two groups: 68 who were randomly assigned to receive empiric amphotericin B, and 64 who were randomly assigned to continue only the protocol antibiotics that they were already receiving. Amphotericin B was administered intravenously as follows: every other day at a dose of 1.2 mg/kg body weight or daily at a dose of 0.6 mg/kg body weight. Clinical response was evaluated as success or failure, depending upon the febrile course after randomization.
                Based on the evolution of fever, the response rate was 69% in the group of patients receiving empiric amphotericin B and 53% for the other group (p = 0.09). There were six documented (four severe) fungal infections in 64 patients randomized not to receive the antifungal therapy as compared to only one fungemia among 68 patients treated empirically with amphotericin B (p = 0.1). No deaths due to fungal infection occurred among the patients receiving empiric amphotericin B compared to four in the other group (p = 0.05). However, this study did not demonstrate a difference in survival between the two groups of patients (with or without empiric amphotericin B). The benefit of empiric administration of amphotericin B was primarily observed in specific subgroups of patients, such as those who did not receive any antifungal prophylaxis (78% versus 45%, p = 0.04), those who were severely granulocytopenic (69% versus 46%, p = 0.06), febrile patients with a clinically documented infection (75% versus 41%, p = 0.03), and patients older than 15 years of age (67% versus 47%, p = 0.06).
                These data suggest a benefit for early amphotericin B treatment in granulocytopenic patients with continued fever despite antibiotic therapy. It has been suggested that a better outcome of neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections can be achieved when high doses of lipid formulations of amphotericin B are used. We now report a randomized multicentre study comparing liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome, 5 mg/kg/d) to amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmB, 1 mg/kg/d) in the treatment of these infections. Of 106 possible patients, 66 were enrolled and analysed for efficacy: nine had documented fungaemia, 17 had other invasive mould infections and 40 had suspected pulmonary aspergillosis. After completion of the course medication, in the AmBisome group (n = 32) 14 patients had achieved complete response, seven a partial response and 11 were failures as compared to 6, 13 and 15 patients (n = 34) treated with AmB (P=0.09); P=0.03 for complete responders. A favourable trend for AmBisome was found at day 14, in patients with documented infections and in patients with pulmonary aspergillosis (P=0.05 and P=0.096 respectively). Mortality rates were lower in patients treated with AmBisome (adjusted for malignancy status, P=0.03). More patients on AmB had a >100% increase of their baseline serum creatinine (P<0.001). The results indicate that, in neutropenic patients with documented or suspected invasive fungal infections AmBisome 5 mg/kg/d was superior to AmB 1 mg/kg/d with respect to efficacy and safety. Invasive candidiasis is increasingly prevalent in premature infants and seriously ill children, and pediatric data on available antifungal therapies are lacking.
                We conducted a pediatric substudy as part of a double-blind, randomized, multinational trial to compare micafungin (2 mg/kg) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg) as first-line treatment of invasive candidiasis. Treatment success was defined as clinical and mycologic response at the end of therapy. Statistical analyses were descriptive, as the sample size meant that the study was not powered for hypothesis testing.
                One hundred six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population; and 98 patients-48 patients in the micafungin group and 50 patients in the liposomal amphotericin B group-in the modified intent-to-treat population. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Overall, 57 patients were <2 years old including 19 patients who were premature at birth; and 41 patients were 2 to <16 years old. Most patients (91/98, 92.9%) had candidemia, and 7/98 (7.1%) patients had other forms of invasive candidiasis. Treatment success was observed for 35/48 (72.9%) patients treated with micafungin and 38/50 (76.0%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions adjusted for neutropenic status was -2.4% [95% CI: (-20.1 to 15.3)]. Efficacy findings were consistent, independent of the neutropenic status, the age of the patient, and whether the patient was premature at birth. Both treatments were well tolerated, but with a lower incidence of adverse events that led to discontinuation in the micafungin group (2/52, 3.8%) compared with the liposomal amphotericin B group (9/54, 16.7%) (P = 0.05, Fisher exact test).
                Micafungin seems to be similarly effective and as safe as liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis in pediatric patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106288). Liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome) 2 mg/kg three times weekly was compared with placebo as prophylaxis against fungal infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation (BMT) for haematological malignancies. Prophylaxis began on day 1 of chemotherapy and continued until neutrophils regenerated or infection was suspected. Of 161 evaluable patients, 74 received AmBisome and 87 received placebo. Proven fungal infections developed in no patients on AmBisome and in three on placebo (3.4%) (P = NS). Suspected fungal infections requiring intervention with systemic antifungal therapy (usually amphotericin B) occurred in 31 patients on AmBisome (42%) and in 40 on placebo (46%) (P = NS). Suspected deep-seated infections developed in 21 (28.3%) and 31 (35.6%) patients, respectively (P = NS). Time to develop a suspected or proven deep-seated infection showed a trend in favour of AmBisome (P = 0.11). Fifty patients had fungal colonisation (48 with Candida spp, two with Aspergillus spp) of at least one body site during prophylaxis; 15 patients while receiving AmBisome (20%) and 35 while on placebo (40%) (P < 0.01). Time to colonisation was significantly delayed in the group receiving AmBisome (P < 0.05). Treatment-related toxicity was modest and no additional toxicity was observed in patients receiving AmBisome. AmBisome 2 mg/kg three times weekly is safe and reduces fungal colonisation in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or BMT. However, despite encouraging trends, prophylactic AmBisome did not lead to a significant reduction in fungal infection or in requirement for systemic antifungal therapy.
Limited paediatric data are available comparing antifungal agents in children with proven, probable or suspected invasive fungal infection. No differences in mortality or treatment efficacy were observed when antifungal agents were compared. Children are less likely to develop nephrotoxicity with a lipid preparation of amphotericin B compared with conventional amphotericin B. Further comparative paediatric antifungal drug trials and epidemiological and pharmacological studies are required highlighting the differences between neonates, children and adults with invasive fungal infections.