No abstract

The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the European Respiratory Society Joint Clinical Guidelines focus on diagnosis and management of aspergillosis. Of the numerous recommendations, a few are summarized here. Chest computed tomography as well as bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with suspicion of pulmonary invasive aspergillosis (IA) are strongly recommended. For diagnosis, direct microscopy, preferably using optical brighteners, histopathology and culture are strongly recommended. Serum and BAL galactomannan measures are recommended as markers for the diagnosis of IA. PCR should be considered in conjunction with other diagnostic tests. Pathogen identification to species complex level is strongly recommended for all clinically relevant Aspergillus isolates; antifungal susceptibility testing should be performed in patients with invasive disease in regions with resistance found in contemporary surveillance programmes. Isavuconazole and voriconazole are the preferred agents for first-line treatment of pulmonary IA, whereas liposomal amphotericin B is moderately supported. Combinations of antifungals as primary treatment options are not recommended. Therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly recommended for patients receiving posaconazole suspension or any form of voriconazole for IA treatment, and in refractory disease, where a personalized approach considering reversal of predisposing factors, switching drug class and surgical intervention is also strongly recommended. Primary prophylaxis with posaconazole is strongly recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving induction chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis is strongly recommended in high-risk patients. We strongly recommend treatment duration based on clinical improvement, degree of immunosuppression and response on imaging.

Summary Antifungal prophylaxis for allogeneic haematopoietic stem‐cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients should prevent invasive mould and yeast infections (IFIs) and be well tolerated. This prospective, randomized, open‐label, multicentre study compared the efficacy and safety of voriconazole (234 patients) versus itraconazole (255 patients) in alloHCT recipients. The primary composite endpoint, success of prophylaxis, incorporated ability to tolerate study drug for ≥100 d (with ≤14 d interruption) with survival to day 180 without proven/probable IFI. Success of prophylaxis was significantly higher with voriconazole than itraconazole (48·7% vs. 33·2%, P < 0·01); more voriconazole patients tolerated prophylaxis for 100 d (53·6% vs. 39·0%, P < 0·01; median total duration 96 vs. 68 d). The most common (>10%) treatment‐related adverse events were vomiting (16·6%), nausea (15·8%) and diarrhoea (10·4%) for itraconazole, and hepatotoxicity/liver function abnormality (12·9%) for voriconazole. More itraconazole patients received other systemic antifungals (41·9% vs. 29·9%, P < 0·01). There was no difference in incidence of proven/probable IFI (1·3% vs. 2·1%) or survival to day 180 (81·9% vs. 80·9%) for voriconazole and itraconazole respectively. Voriconazole was superior to itraconazole as antifungal prophylaxis after alloHCT, based on differences in the primary composite endpoint. Voriconazole could be given for significantly longer durations, with less need for other systemic antifungals.