MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Empiric Antifungal Therapy with Amphotericin B in the Era of Fluconazole Prophylaxis: a Cohort Study in Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated within An Institutional Antifungal Policy.

2009· article· en· W2530875774 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Adams, Tamana Hafid, Kari Kolm, Jolanta Jeziorowska, Deborah Marcellus, Graeme Fraser, Ronan Foley, Michael Trus, A. Benger, C. Tom Kouroukis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluconazoleNeutropeniaAmphotericin BCaspofunginMedicineFebrile neutropeniaInternal medicineEmpiric therapyMyeloid leukemiaChemotherapyIntensive care medicineSurgeryAntifungalPathologyDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1390 Poster Board I-412 Purpose: To determine whether fluconazole prophylaxis was effective in decreasing the need for parenteral empiric antifungal therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and persistent febrile neutropenia or suspected fungal infection at our center. Background: Prophylaxis with fluconazole in patients with severe chemotherapy-related neutropenia has been found to be beneficial in decreasing the need for parenteral antifungal therapy, and preventing superficial and invasive fungal infections and fungal infection-related mortality (Bow et al., Cancer 2002;94:3230-3246). Methods: The records of all patients at our hospital who presented with AML from January 1999 to July 2009 were reviewed retrospectively. As of September 2005 we adopted an institutional antifungal policy consisting of routine antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole followed by amphotericin B as the first line parenteral agent in the event of persistent fever despite broad spectrum antibiotics or suspected fungal infection. The policy included criteria for switching from amphotericin B to a second line agent (caspofungin) for continued empiric therapy or another agent depending on clinical or laboratory data or suspicion of a particular pathogen. Explicit criteria were also developed for switching to a second line agent including baseline renal function or change in renal function while receiving amphotericin B or other adverse effects such as significant infusion reactions or electrolyte disturbances. Fluconazole was given at a dose of 400 mg daily starting with induction chemotherapy and continued until blood count recovery or switch to parenteral antifungal agent. Results: We identified a total of 170 patients with a median age of 61 years (range 18-89 years), 53 % were female and the median follow-up time was 187 days (range 2-2549 days). Baseline cytogenetics grouped patients into poor risk (40%), standard risk (39%) and favorable risk (10%) categories, with 11% unknown or inconclusive. Two-thirds of patients had de-novo AML. Twenty-four percent of patients did not receive induction chemotherapy and were treated with best supportive care, leaving 130 patients who received induction chemotherapy. Overall median survival for chemotherapy treated patients was 409 days, compared with 44 days for patients treated with best supportive care. The majority of patients (77%) who received chemotherapy were treated with standard induction consisting of 3 days of an anthracycline and 7-10 days of continuous infusion cytarabine. Of the patients treated with induction chemotherapy, 65% received prophylaxis with fluconazole and 32% did not, the remainder received prophylaxis with other antifungal agents. The use of prophylactic fluconazole coincided with implementation of our antifungal policy. Of patients who were treated with fluconazole prophylaxis, 62% required parenteral antifungal therapy and 38% did not. Of patients who did not receive fluconazole prophylaxis 56% required parenteral antifungals and 44% did not. These differences relating to receiving fluconazole prophylaxis were not statistically significantly different. For those patients requiring empiric antifungal therapy, they received a median of 18 days of fluconazole (range 3-156 days). Of the 56 patients who were treated with amphotericin B as empiric therapy, 59% were changed to another agent due to renal effects (42%), fever (27%) or other adverse effects (21%). Switching off amphotericin B occurred after a median of 7.5 days (range 0-59 days). Fifty-six percent of patients received caspofungin as the second line agent while the policy was in effect. Conclusion: Based on our retrospective analysis of the practical use of antifungal prophylaxis within our institutional antifungal policy, fluconazole prophylaxis did not decrease the need for empiric parenteral antifungal therapy. The majority of patients treated with empiric amphotericin B were switched to a second line agent, mostly due to intolerance or adverse effects. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility→French-language works237,207→