泊沙康唑与氟康唑对接受同种异体造血干细胞移植的侵袭性真菌感染高风险患者的首选抗真菌预防

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Valentin Letailleur, Maxime Jullien, Alice Garnier, Pierre Peterlin, Sophie Vantyghem, Aude-Marie Fourmont, Thierry Guillaume, Patrice Chevallier, Amandine Le Bourgeois
{"title":"泊沙康唑与氟康唑对接受同种异体造血干细胞移植的侵袭性真菌感染高风险患者的首选抗真菌预防","authors":"Valentin Letailleur, Maxime Jullien, Alice Garnier, Pierre Peterlin, Sophie Vantyghem, Aude-Marie Fourmont, Thierry Guillaume, Patrice Chevallier, Amandine Le Bourgeois","doi":"10.1038/s41409-025-02589-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the aim to reduce the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), the ECIL group recommends the use of drugs active against molds such as posaconazole instead of fluconazole in high-risk (HR) IFI patients. But data to support this recommendation are poor. The aim of this monocentric study was to compare retrospectively the use of fluconazole (n = 96) vs. posaconazole (n = 63), as primary antifungal prophylaxis within the first 90 days (D) post-transplant in a cohort of patients at HR-IFI (n = 159). HR-IFI was defined by the use of an alternative donor, post-transplant cyclophosphamide and/or sequential conditioning regimen, and/or an active disease at transplant or a previous allo-HSCT. Incidences of D90, 6-month, 1-year and 2-year CI of IFI as well as D90 primary prophylaxis failure (IFI resulting in the initiation of a curative antifungal therapy or a permanent discontinuation of the prophylaxis for toxicity) were similar between both groups. However, the number of probable/proven IFI that occurred between D0 and D90 was the double in the fluco group (9 vs. 4). Also, no proven IFI (vs. 4) or mucormycoses (vs. 1) or IFI related death (vs. 4) occurred in the posa group in the first 90 days. Posaconazole thus appears to be a good option to prevent IFI after allo-HSCT in patients at HR-IFI.</p>","PeriodicalId":9126,"journal":{"name":"Bone Marrow Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Posaconazole versus fluconazole as primary antifungal prophylaxis for patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.\",\"authors\":\"Valentin Letailleur, Maxime Jullien, Alice Garnier, Pierre Peterlin, Sophie Vantyghem, Aude-Marie Fourmont, Thierry Guillaume, Patrice Chevallier, Amandine Le Bourgeois\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41409-025-02589-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>With the aim to reduce the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), the ECIL group recommends the use of drugs active against molds such as posaconazole instead of fluconazole in high-risk (HR) IFI patients. But data to support this recommendation are poor. The aim of this monocentric study was to compare retrospectively the use of fluconazole (n = 96) vs. posaconazole (n = 63), as primary antifungal prophylaxis within the first 90 days (D) post-transplant in a cohort of patients at HR-IFI (n = 159). HR-IFI was defined by the use of an alternative donor, post-transplant cyclophosphamide and/or sequential conditioning regimen, and/or an active disease at transplant or a previous allo-HSCT. Incidences of D90, 6-month, 1-year and 2-year CI of IFI as well as D90 primary prophylaxis failure (IFI resulting in the initiation of a curative antifungal therapy or a permanent discontinuation of the prophylaxis for toxicity) were similar between both groups. However, the number of probable/proven IFI that occurred between D0 and D90 was the double in the fluco group (9 vs. 4). Also, no proven IFI (vs. 4) or mucormycoses (vs. 1) or IFI related death (vs. 4) occurred in the posa group in the first 90 days. Posaconazole thus appears to be a good option to prevent IFI after allo-HSCT in patients at HR-IFI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone Marrow Transplantation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone Marrow Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-025-02589-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone Marrow Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-025-02589-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了降低同种异体造血干细胞移植(alloo - hsct)后侵袭性真菌感染(IFI)的发生率,ECIL小组建议在高风险(HR) IFI患者中使用泊沙康唑等抗霉菌药物代替氟康唑。但支持这一建议的数据不足。这项单中心研究的目的是回顾性比较在HR-IFI患者队列(n = 159)中,氟康唑(n = 96)和泊沙康唑(n = 63)作为移植后90天(D)内主要抗真菌预防药物的使用情况。HR-IFI的定义是使用替代供体,移植后使用环磷酰胺和/或序次调节方案,和/或移植时存在活动性疾病或既往同种异体造血干细胞移植。两组间IFI的D90、6个月、1年和2年CI以及D90一级预防失败(IFI导致开始治疗性抗真菌治疗或因毒性而永久停止预防)的发生率相似。然而,在D0和D90之间发生的可能/证实的IFI数量在氟康组中是两倍(9对4)。此外,posa组在前90天内未发生经证实的IFI (vs. 4)或毛霉菌病(vs. 1)或IFI相关死亡(vs. 4)。泊沙康唑因此似乎是一个很好的选择,以防止在HR-IFI患者同种异体造血干细胞移植后IFI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Posaconazole versus fluconazole as primary antifungal prophylaxis for patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

With the aim to reduce the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), the ECIL group recommends the use of drugs active against molds such as posaconazole instead of fluconazole in high-risk (HR) IFI patients. But data to support this recommendation are poor. The aim of this monocentric study was to compare retrospectively the use of fluconazole (n = 96) vs. posaconazole (n = 63), as primary antifungal prophylaxis within the first 90 days (D) post-transplant in a cohort of patients at HR-IFI (n = 159). HR-IFI was defined by the use of an alternative donor, post-transplant cyclophosphamide and/or sequential conditioning regimen, and/or an active disease at transplant or a previous allo-HSCT. Incidences of D90, 6-month, 1-year and 2-year CI of IFI as well as D90 primary prophylaxis failure (IFI resulting in the initiation of a curative antifungal therapy or a permanent discontinuation of the prophylaxis for toxicity) were similar between both groups. However, the number of probable/proven IFI that occurred between D0 and D90 was the double in the fluco group (9 vs. 4). Also, no proven IFI (vs. 4) or mucormycoses (vs. 1) or IFI related death (vs. 4) occurred in the posa group in the first 90 days. Posaconazole thus appears to be a good option to prevent IFI after allo-HSCT in patients at HR-IFI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bone Marrow Transplantation
Bone Marrow Transplantation 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
337
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Bone Marrow Transplantation publishes high quality, peer reviewed original research that addresses all aspects of basic biology and clinical use of haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. The broad scope of the journal thus encompasses topics such as stem cell biology, e.g., kinetics and cytokine control, transplantation immunology e.g., HLA and matching techniques, translational research, and clinical results of specific transplant protocols. Bone Marrow Transplantation publishes 24 issues a year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信