Breakthrough Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients With High-Risk Hematological Disorders Receiving Voriconazole and Posaconazole Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary antifungal prophylaxis with mold-active azoles is used to prevent invasive fungal infections in patients with high-risk hematological disorders; however, breakthrough infections occur, and the reasons for treatment failure are still not fully understood. To help inform clinical decisions, we sought to define microbiological, clinical, and pharmacological characteristics of proven and probable breakthrough invasive fungal infections (bIFIs) in patients with high-risk hematological disorders receiving voriconazole or posaconazole prophylaxis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search strategy was last conducted on 19 April 2023. RESULTS: We assessed 5293 studies for eligibility, and 300 were selected for data extraction. These studies described 1076 cases of bIFIs occurring under voriconazole (42.5%) or posaconazole (57.5%). The most commonly found pathogens were Aspergillus (40%), Mucorales (20%), Candida (18%), and Fusarium (9%) species. Mucorales were more frequent among voriconazole-emerging cases, whereas Aspergillus and Fusarium were more prevalent among posaconazole-emerging cases. Definitive, putative, or probable antifungal resistance was found in 31% of cases. Therapeutic drug monitoring showed subtherapeutic azole concentration in 32 of 90 (36%) cases. Infection-related mortality was reported in 117 cases and reached 35%. CONCLUSIONS: In our systemic review, the most common bIFIs were aspergillosis, mucormycosis, candidiasis, and fusariosis. Antifungal resistance explains only a minority of cases. Subtherapeutic prophylaxis was frequent but rarely reported. Prospective studies are needed to better understand these infections and to establish optimal management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".