A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empiric antifungal therapy in pediatric patients with persistent fever and neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Persistently febrile neutropenic children at risk for invasive fungal infections receive empiric antifungal therapy as a standard of care. However, little is known about the role of echinocandins and liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) for empiric antifungal therapy in pediatric patients. METHODS: Patients between the ages of 2 to 17 years with persistent fever and neutropenia were randomly assigned to receive caspofungin (70 mg/m loading dose on day 1, then 50 mg/m daily [maximum 70 mg/d]) or L-AmB (3 mg/kg daily) in a 2:1 ratio. Evaluation of safety was the primary objective of the study. Efficacy was also evaluated, with a successful outcome defined as fulfilling all components of a prespecified 5-part composite endpoint. Suspected invasive fungal infections were evaluated by an independent, treatment-blinded adjudication committee. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients received study therapy (caspofungin 56, L-AmB 26), and 81 were evaluated for efficacy (caspofungin 56; L-AmB 25). Outcomes for safety and efficacy endpoints were similar for both study arms. Adverse drug-related event rates [95% confidence interval] were similar between the caspofungin and L-AmB groups (clinical 48.2% [34.7-62.0] versus 46.2% [26.6-66.6]; laboratory 10.7% [4.0-21.9] versus 19.2% [6.6-39.4]). Serious drug-related adverse events occurred in 1 (1.8%) of caspofungin-treated patients and 3 (11.5%) of L-AmB-treated patients. Overall success rates [95% CI] were 46.4% [33.4-59.5] for caspofungin and 32.0% [13.7-50.3] for L-AmB. CONCLUSIONS: Caspofungin and L-AmB were comparable in tolerability, safety, and efficacy as empiric antifungal therapy for persistently febrile neutropenic pediatric patients.

Issues related to the design and interpretation of clinical trials of salvage therapy for invasive mold infection.

Invasive mold infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among severely immunocompromised individuals. We discuss the challenges involved in the design and interpretation of salvage antifungal trials, focusing on mold infection. We suggest that patients with refractory fungal infection be analyzed separately from those with intolerance to standard regimens because of the poorer prognosis of the former group. We propose a composite outcome assessment in which refractory infection is defined as infection associated with the worsening of at least 2 of the following 3 types of criteria: clinical, radiologic, and mycologic. Confounding variables, including heterogeneity in host factors, initial antifungal therapy, and selection bias, are discussed. Although randomized studies would provide the most credible results, the lack of an adequate number of patients to meet prespecified stratification criteria for all confounding variables makes such studies impractical. Given that randomized studies are unrealistic, studies involving carefully selected, matched, contemporaneous control subjects are likely to be the most useful alternative.

Strategy of following voriconazole versus amphotericin B therapy with other licensed antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis: impact of other therapies on outcome.

BACKGROUND: In a previous randomized trial of voriconazole versus amphotericin B deoxycholate for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis, voriconazole demonstrated superior efficacy and better survival. In that trial, treatment with voriconazole or amphotericin B deoxycholate could be followed with other licensed antifungal therapies (OLAT). Here, we report the impact of OLAT on the outcome of patients with invasive aspergillosis. METHODS: Data on dose, duration, and the reason for switching to the first OLAT were analyzed, and outcome at week 12 was assessed. RESULTS: Fewer patients in the voriconazole group (52 [36%] of 144) switched to OLAT, compared with patients in the amphotericin B deoxycholate group (107 [80%] of 133). Lipid formulations of amphotericin B were the most common OLAT (38% of patients). Switches were made because of intolerance or insufficient response in 70% for patients in the amphotericin B deoxycholate group, compared with 24% of patients in the voriconazole group. Favorable responses to OLAT in the amphotericin B deoxycholate group occurred in only 19% of patients with initial insufficient response and 38% of patients with intolerance. Salvage therapy with a lipid formulation of amphotericin B after initial treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was successful for only 30% of patients (14 of 47). Treatment success among patients randomized to receive amphotericin B, including those whose treatment was switched to OLAT, was 32%, compared with 55% among patients who received voriconazole alone (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the limited efficacy of salvage antifungal therapy, including therapy with lipid formulations of amphotericin B, and demonstrates the importance of effective initial therapy in invasive aspergillosis.

Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with persistent fever and neutropenia often receive empirical therapy with conventional or liposomal amphotericin B for the prevention and early treatment of invasive fungal infections. Caspofungin, a member of the new echinocandin class of compounds, may be an effective alternative that is better tolerated than amphotericin B. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multinational trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of caspofungin as compared with liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy. At study entry, patients were stratified according to risk and according to whether they had previously received antifungal prophylaxis. A successful outcome was defined as the fulfillment of all components of a five-part composite end point. RESULTS: Efficacy was evaluated in 1095 patients (556 receiving caspofungin and 539 receiving liposomal amphotericin B). After adjustment for strata, the overall success rates were 33.9 percent for caspofungin and 33.7 percent for liposomal amphotericin B (95.2 percent confidence interval for the difference, -5.6 to 6.0 percent), fulfilling statistical criteria for the noninferiority of caspofungin. Among patients with baseline fungal infections, a higher proportion of those treated with caspofungin had a successful outcome (51.9 percent vs. 25.9 percent, P=0.04). The proportion of patients who survived at least seven days after therapy was greater in the caspofungin group (92.6 percent vs. 89.2 percent, P=0.05). Premature study discontinuation occurred less often in the caspofungin group than in the amphotericin B group (10.3 percent vs. 14.5 percent, P=0.03). The rates of breakthrough fungal infections and resolution of fever during neutropenia were similar in the two groups. Fewer patients who received caspofungin sustained a nephrotoxic effect (2.6 percent vs. 11.5 percent, P<0.001), an infusion-related event (35.1 percent vs. 51.6 percent, P<0.001), or a drug-related adverse event or discontinued therapy because of drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Caspofungin is as effective as and generally better tolerated than liposomal amphotericin B when given as empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia.