How common is subsequent central nervous system toxicity in asymptomatic patients with haematologic malignancy and supratherapeutic voriconazole serum levels?

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the frequency at which patients with elevated voriconazole (VRC) levels but no clinically evident central nervous system (CNS) toxicity subsequently develop CNS toxicity. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of adult patients with haematolologic malignancy who had a VRC serum level >5.5 µg/mL at MD Anderson Cancer Center (January 2010 to December 2015). Patients with any documented CNS toxicity at the time the VRC level was obtained or patients whose VRC was discontinued as a response to high VRC level were excluded. Neurologic status was assessed using standard grading scales. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including potentially interacting medications, were correlated with the development of toxicity. RESULTS: We identified 320 such patients (mean age, 57 ± 15 years; 202 male (63%)). Subsequent CNS toxicity was documented in only 16 patients (5%). The most common CNS toxicities were visual disturbances (9/16, 56%), depressed consciousness (5/16, 31%) and cognitive disturbance (4/16, 19%). Patients with CNS toxicity tended to be older than those without (64 ± 8 vs 57 ± 15 y, p 0.08). The use of one or more neurotoxic drugs was common in patients with subsequent CNS toxicity (14/16, 88%). Reduction of VRC dose associated with the high VRC level did not correlate with less subsequent CNS toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Development of subsequent CNS toxicity is uncommon in haematolologic malignancy patients with elevated VRC levels who had no evidence of toxicity at the time the level was obtained. Automatic reduction of VRC dose out of concern for impending CNS toxicity might not be warranted.

Ertapenem usage in cancer patients with and without neutropenia: a report on 97 cases from a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Ertapenem is being increasingly utilized in cancer patients, but published data regarding its usage are limited. Our objective was to describe the various indications for ertapenem therapy and its safety and efficacy in cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients who received monotherapy with ertapenem for at least 72 h, between January 2007 and February 2013. RESULTS: Among 97 unique patients who received ertapenem monotherapy, the most common indications were: (1) To facilitate discharge from the hospital of stable patients still requiring antimicrobial therapy (46 %). (2) Primary therapy of various documented infections (bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and skin structure infection) with ertapenem (28 %). (3) De-escalation from a different broad-spectrum agent or regimen to ertapenem within the hospital setting in patients not ready for discharge (25 %). The median age of the 97 patients studied was 59 years (range 9-87 years) with 52 % being men. Most patients had underlying hematologic malignancies (54 %), and 7 % were recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Twenty-nine patients (30 %) were neutropenic, 26 % were diabetic, and 6 % had chronic lung disease. Primary ertapenem monotherapy was successful in all patients, de-escalation in 95.8 % of patients, and the strategy of discharge on outpatient therapy with ertapenem in 95.6 % of patients. Patients failing de-escalation or early discharge responded to alternative regimens. We documented no significant ertapenem associated toxicity or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem appears to be safe and effective for several indications in cancer patients.