MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980297967 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.1136.1136

High Incidence of Invasive Fungal Infections in Adult Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

2009· article· en· W2980297967 sur OpenAlexaff
Winnie Ma, Dawn Warkentin, Janice Yeung, John D. Shepherd, Yasser Abou Mourad, Clayton A. Smith, Kevin Song, Donna E. Hogge, Michael J. Barnett, Thomas J. Nevill, Stephen H. Nantel, Cynthia L. Toze, Heather J. Sutherland, Donna L. Forrest, Sujaatha Narayanan, Maryse Power

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaVancouver Coastal HealthProvidence Health Care
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)TransplantationCumulative incidenceChronic lymphocytic leukemiaSurgeryFluconazoleLeukemiaMultiple myelomaPopulationAntifungal

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1136 Poster Board I-158 Introduction Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Prophylaxis of high risk patient groups has become a key strategy in managing these infections, which are characteristically difficult to pre-emptively diagnose. The benefit of newer prophylactic agents depends in part on the local incidence of IFI in a population. This study was carried out to define the incidence of IFI in a cohort of HSCT patients treated by the Leukemia/Bone Marrow Transplant Program of British Columbia, to elucidate risk factors for IFI and to assess the efficacy of our current prophylaxis strategy. Methods Two hundred and forty-nine adult HSCT patients who underwent autologous or allogeneic transplantation between October 2006 and March 2008 were retrospectively evaluated. One hundred and eighty patients underwent high dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT during this period. The indication for HSCT in this group was predominantly multiple myeloma (n=95; 53%) or non-Hodgkins lymphoma (n=59; 32.8%). Sixty-nine patients underwent allogeneic HSCT using a related sibling (n=46) or matched unrelated (n=23) donor. The predominant indication for allogeneic HSCT was acute leukemia/ myelodysplasia (48%), followed by non-Hodgkins lymphoma (25%) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%). Patients enrolled in prophylaxis clinical trials or with previously documented IFI were excluded from analysis. Routine antifungal prophylaxis with low dose amphotericin B (10mg/m2/day) for inpatients and oral fluconazole (400mg/day) for outpatients was given during the neutropenic phase throughout the period of the study. Results The overall incidence of proven, probable or possible IFI was 2.2% (4/180) and 19% (13/69) in autologous and allogeneic HSCT groups, respectively. The median time to IFI in autologous HSCT recipients was 12.5 days (7-19) post transplantation. In allogeneic HSCT patients, a bimodal incidence of IFI was observed with the first peak occurring within the first 30 days of transplantation and a later peak after 100 days. Invasive aspergillosis (IA) was the predominant IFI encountered (82%); the remaining IFI were due to invasive candidiasis (IC). The incidence of IA was 1.7% (3/180) and 16% (11/69) in autologous and allogeneic HSCT patients. Mortality attributable to fungal infection was 18% (3/17) and all deaths were cases of IA occurring in the allogeneic HSCT group. Modification of antifungal prophylaxis occurred in 23% of patients. Indications for changes in prophylaxis included: initiation of empiric therapy for suspected infection (18%), change to an orally active agent to facilitate discharge from hospital (12%), nephrotoxicity (14%) or infusion reactions (2%). Patients who developed IFI were more likely to have received prolonged high-dose corticosteroid therapy (i.e. prednisone >7.5mg daily for 3 weeks or more) for graft-versus-host disease (82% in IFI vs. 24% in non-IFI, p<0.001). Patients who received alemtuzumab or fludarabine as part of the conditioning regimen were also more likely to develop IFI (23% in IFI vs. 1.3% in non-IFI, p<0.001) and (23% in IFI vs. 6% in non-IFI, p=0.005), respectively. IFI patients were more likely to have received total parenteral nutrition during the peritransplant course (47% in IFI vs. 18% non-IFI, p<0.001). Conclusion Invasive fungal infections occurred in 19% of allogeneic HSCT recipients with an attributable mortality of 18%. IFI is less concerning in autologous HSCT recipients, occurring in 2% of cases. The predominant infection of concern is invasive aspergillosis in our population. Patients should receive prophylaxis during the neutropenic phase following allogeneic HSCT; those who develop graft-versus-host disease requiring prolonged steroid therapy should be particularly targeted for antifungal prophylaxis with mould-active antifungal agents. The role of T cell suppression in conditioning therapy and the influence of TPN exposure on the incidence of IFI is an area which warrants further study in defining specific risk groups for costly and potentially toxic prophylactic therapy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,221 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAntifungal resistance and susceptibility→Travaux en français237 207→