SEQ

Últimas Noticias
Rev Esp Quimioter 2017; 30(3): 213-223 PDF Imprimir E-mail

Consensus opinion on antifungal prophylaxis in haematologic patients: Results of the PROMIC project                     

LOURDES VÁZQUEZ LÓPEZ, TERESA VILLAESCUSA DE LA ROSA, RAFAEL DE LA CÁMARA, ILDEFONSO ESPIGADO, SANTIAGO GRAU CERRATO, MANUEL JURADO, MONTSERRAT ROVIRA, MIGUEL SALAVERT, DAVID SERRANO SIMONNEAU, CARLOS SOLANO VERCET, ISABEL RUIZ CAMPS           

Introduction. Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in haematological patients. Antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) is indicated for a number of clinical scenarios in this group of patients. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on IFD prophylaxis in haematological patients in order to optimize their management.
Methods. A committee of experts in haematology and infectious diseases compiled a survey of 79 items with controversial aspects about antifungal prophylaxis in haematological patients. The survey was evaluated in two rounds by a panel of experts following a modified Delphi methodology.
Results. Forty-four experts in haematology and infectious diseases answered the survey. After two evaluation rounds, consensus was reached in 67 of the 79 items (84.8%), specifically 48 items were consensually agreed on (60.7%) and 19 were disagreed on (24.0%). Consensus was reached on prophylaxis candidates profiles and questions related to indications, mechanisms of action, spectrum of activity, toxicity and interactions of antifungal were elucidated. The usefulness of micafungin in IFD prophylaxis was particularly analysed. The consensus reached was that micafungin is an antifungal to be considered in this context as its safety profile and lower interaction potential may be advantageous.
Conclusions. A broad consensus was found in the management of IFD prophylaxis in the haematological patient. This consensus provides practical indications about its optimal management and can help determine the profile of patients eligible for this type of intervention.

Rev Esp Quimioter 2017; 30(3): 213-223 [pdf]