User login
MILAN – Empirical antifungal treatment did not improve the rate of survival free of invasive fungal infection among high-risk colonized patients in the intensive care unit, based on results from the EMPIRICUS randomized controlled trial.
Trial participants were 260 nonneutropenic, nontransplanted critically ill patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, Candida colonization of at least one site, and multiple organ failure who were exposed to broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. They were randomized to 14 days of empirical treatment with micafungin (Mycamine, 100 mg once daily) or placebo.
By day 28, about two-thirds of patients overall remained alive and free of proven invasive fungal infection, with no significant difference between groups, according to data reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and simultaneously published online (JAMA. 2016 Oct 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14655). Results were similar in subsets of patients having established risk factors for candidemia.
The EMPIRICUS (Empirical Antifungal Treatment in ICUs) findings add to data from other studies suggesting that, in this patient population, sepsis is seldom a result of invasive fungal infection and Candida colonization status is not helpful for guiding treatment, according to the researchers, who were led by Dr. Jean-Francois Timsit of Inserm/Paris Diderot University and department of medical intensive care and infectious diseases, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris.
“Altogether, these results call into question the routine use of systematic surveillance for Candida colonization. Besides sparing unnecessary use of health care resources, it may also avoid inducing resistances to antifungals,” they maintain. “Whether this trial closes 3 decades of clinical research on Candida colonization deserves consideration.”
Patients were recruited to EMPIRICUS from 19 ICUs in France. On average, study participants had three Candida-colonized sites.
A modified intent-to-treat analysis showed that, by day 28 after enrollment, 68% of patients in the micafungin group and 60.2% in the placebo group were alive and free of invasive fungal infection, a nonsignificant difference.
Findings were similar in the subset of patients having high serum levels of (1-3)-beta-D-glucan and in the subset of patients having high Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores – both risk factors for candidemia – and regardless of the number of colonized sites.
In analyses of secondary outcomes, empirical micafungin was associated with a lower rate of new invasive fungal infection when compared with placebo (3% vs. 12%; P = .008), but the rate of mortality was statistically indistinguishable (30% vs. 29.7%).
The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to the number of organ failure–free days and the rate of ventilator-acquired pneumonia.
Dr. Timsit disclosed that he receives lecture fees from Gilead, Pfizer, Merck, and Astellas; research grants to his university and research organization from Astellas, Gilead, Merck, and Pfizer companies; a consultancy honorarium from Bayer; and personal fees from Abbott for scientific board participation; additionally, he disclosed participation on a scientific committee of epidemiological studies organized by Astellas and Merck companies outside the submitted work. Astellas provided a research grant to the Grenoble Alpes University Hospital based on the final study protocol. The study was sponsored by the University of Grenoble 1/Albert Michallon University Hospital. The University of Grenoble provided compensation to the participating hospitals and universities for extra costs associated with the study.
Taken together, findings from EMPIRICUS and similar trials suggest that empirical antifungal treatment may reduce rates of invasive infection in critically ill patients, but does not improve survival.
These findings highlight two emerging themes in critical care medicine – less is more and targeted therapies are important when treating invasive fungal infection. In particular, the safety and efficacy of the newer antifungal agents are driving greater empirical use, yet this practice increases the cost of care and may contribute to antifungal resistance.
Guidelines have been implemented for empirical treatment of Candida and serial surveillance, yet there are no conclusive mortality benefits for this approach. Data have not ruled out the possibility that some subgroups of patients may see a survival benefit but, in light of the situation, guidelines concerning empirical treatment and surveillance should be revisited.
Like other prophylactic interventions, the risks and potential benefits of empirical echinocandin therapy for critically ill, immune-competent patients in the ICU need to be studied. Novel biomarkers or clinical risk assessment algorithms may help in identifying those patients who are at highest risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality and would benefit most from targeted preventive therapies.
Trishul Siddharthan, MD, Petros C. Karakousis, MD, and William Checkley, MD, PhD, are with the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. They made their remarks in an accompanying editorial in JAMA (2016 Oct 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13801).
Taken together, findings from EMPIRICUS and similar trials suggest that empirical antifungal treatment may reduce rates of invasive infection in critically ill patients, but does not improve survival.
These findings highlight two emerging themes in critical care medicine – less is more and targeted therapies are important when treating invasive fungal infection. In particular, the safety and efficacy of the newer antifungal agents are driving greater empirical use, yet this practice increases the cost of care and may contribute to antifungal resistance.
Guidelines have been implemented for empirical treatment of Candida and serial surveillance, yet there are no conclusive mortality benefits for this approach. Data have not ruled out the possibility that some subgroups of patients may see a survival benefit but, in light of the situation, guidelines concerning empirical treatment and surveillance should be revisited.
Like other prophylactic interventions, the risks and potential benefits of empirical echinocandin therapy for critically ill, immune-competent patients in the ICU need to be studied. Novel biomarkers or clinical risk assessment algorithms may help in identifying those patients who are at highest risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality and would benefit most from targeted preventive therapies.
Trishul Siddharthan, MD, Petros C. Karakousis, MD, and William Checkley, MD, PhD, are with the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. They made their remarks in an accompanying editorial in JAMA (2016 Oct 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13801).
Taken together, findings from EMPIRICUS and similar trials suggest that empirical antifungal treatment may reduce rates of invasive infection in critically ill patients, but does not improve survival.
These findings highlight two emerging themes in critical care medicine – less is more and targeted therapies are important when treating invasive fungal infection. In particular, the safety and efficacy of the newer antifungal agents are driving greater empirical use, yet this practice increases the cost of care and may contribute to antifungal resistance.
Guidelines have been implemented for empirical treatment of Candida and serial surveillance, yet there are no conclusive mortality benefits for this approach. Data have not ruled out the possibility that some subgroups of patients may see a survival benefit but, in light of the situation, guidelines concerning empirical treatment and surveillance should be revisited.
Like other prophylactic interventions, the risks and potential benefits of empirical echinocandin therapy for critically ill, immune-competent patients in the ICU need to be studied. Novel biomarkers or clinical risk assessment algorithms may help in identifying those patients who are at highest risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality and would benefit most from targeted preventive therapies.
Trishul Siddharthan, MD, Petros C. Karakousis, MD, and William Checkley, MD, PhD, are with the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. They made their remarks in an accompanying editorial in JAMA (2016 Oct 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13801).
MILAN – Empirical antifungal treatment did not improve the rate of survival free of invasive fungal infection among high-risk colonized patients in the intensive care unit, based on results from the EMPIRICUS randomized controlled trial.
Trial participants were 260 nonneutropenic, nontransplanted critically ill patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, Candida colonization of at least one site, and multiple organ failure who were exposed to broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. They were randomized to 14 days of empirical treatment with micafungin (Mycamine, 100 mg once daily) or placebo.
By day 28, about two-thirds of patients overall remained alive and free of proven invasive fungal infection, with no significant difference between groups, according to data reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and simultaneously published online (JAMA. 2016 Oct 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14655). Results were similar in subsets of patients having established risk factors for candidemia.
The EMPIRICUS (Empirical Antifungal Treatment in ICUs) findings add to data from other studies suggesting that, in this patient population, sepsis is seldom a result of invasive fungal infection and Candida colonization status is not helpful for guiding treatment, according to the researchers, who were led by Dr. Jean-Francois Timsit of Inserm/Paris Diderot University and department of medical intensive care and infectious diseases, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris.
“Altogether, these results call into question the routine use of systematic surveillance for Candida colonization. Besides sparing unnecessary use of health care resources, it may also avoid inducing resistances to antifungals,” they maintain. “Whether this trial closes 3 decades of clinical research on Candida colonization deserves consideration.”
Patients were recruited to EMPIRICUS from 19 ICUs in France. On average, study participants had three Candida-colonized sites.
A modified intent-to-treat analysis showed that, by day 28 after enrollment, 68% of patients in the micafungin group and 60.2% in the placebo group were alive and free of invasive fungal infection, a nonsignificant difference.
Findings were similar in the subset of patients having high serum levels of (1-3)-beta-D-glucan and in the subset of patients having high Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores – both risk factors for candidemia – and regardless of the number of colonized sites.
In analyses of secondary outcomes, empirical micafungin was associated with a lower rate of new invasive fungal infection when compared with placebo (3% vs. 12%; P = .008), but the rate of mortality was statistically indistinguishable (30% vs. 29.7%).
The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to the number of organ failure–free days and the rate of ventilator-acquired pneumonia.
Dr. Timsit disclosed that he receives lecture fees from Gilead, Pfizer, Merck, and Astellas; research grants to his university and research organization from Astellas, Gilead, Merck, and Pfizer companies; a consultancy honorarium from Bayer; and personal fees from Abbott for scientific board participation; additionally, he disclosed participation on a scientific committee of epidemiological studies organized by Astellas and Merck companies outside the submitted work. Astellas provided a research grant to the Grenoble Alpes University Hospital based on the final study protocol. The study was sponsored by the University of Grenoble 1/Albert Michallon University Hospital. The University of Grenoble provided compensation to the participating hospitals and universities for extra costs associated with the study.
MILAN – Empirical antifungal treatment did not improve the rate of survival free of invasive fungal infection among high-risk colonized patients in the intensive care unit, based on results from the EMPIRICUS randomized controlled trial.
Trial participants were 260 nonneutropenic, nontransplanted critically ill patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, Candida colonization of at least one site, and multiple organ failure who were exposed to broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. They were randomized to 14 days of empirical treatment with micafungin (Mycamine, 100 mg once daily) or placebo.
By day 28, about two-thirds of patients overall remained alive and free of proven invasive fungal infection, with no significant difference between groups, according to data reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and simultaneously published online (JAMA. 2016 Oct 5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14655). Results were similar in subsets of patients having established risk factors for candidemia.
The EMPIRICUS (Empirical Antifungal Treatment in ICUs) findings add to data from other studies suggesting that, in this patient population, sepsis is seldom a result of invasive fungal infection and Candida colonization status is not helpful for guiding treatment, according to the researchers, who were led by Dr. Jean-Francois Timsit of Inserm/Paris Diderot University and department of medical intensive care and infectious diseases, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris.
“Altogether, these results call into question the routine use of systematic surveillance for Candida colonization. Besides sparing unnecessary use of health care resources, it may also avoid inducing resistances to antifungals,” they maintain. “Whether this trial closes 3 decades of clinical research on Candida colonization deserves consideration.”
Patients were recruited to EMPIRICUS from 19 ICUs in France. On average, study participants had three Candida-colonized sites.
A modified intent-to-treat analysis showed that, by day 28 after enrollment, 68% of patients in the micafungin group and 60.2% in the placebo group were alive and free of invasive fungal infection, a nonsignificant difference.
Findings were similar in the subset of patients having high serum levels of (1-3)-beta-D-glucan and in the subset of patients having high Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores – both risk factors for candidemia – and regardless of the number of colonized sites.
In analyses of secondary outcomes, empirical micafungin was associated with a lower rate of new invasive fungal infection when compared with placebo (3% vs. 12%; P = .008), but the rate of mortality was statistically indistinguishable (30% vs. 29.7%).
The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to the number of organ failure–free days and the rate of ventilator-acquired pneumonia.
Dr. Timsit disclosed that he receives lecture fees from Gilead, Pfizer, Merck, and Astellas; research grants to his university and research organization from Astellas, Gilead, Merck, and Pfizer companies; a consultancy honorarium from Bayer; and personal fees from Abbott for scientific board participation; additionally, he disclosed participation on a scientific committee of epidemiological studies organized by Astellas and Merck companies outside the submitted work. Astellas provided a research grant to the Grenoble Alpes University Hospital based on the final study protocol. The study was sponsored by the University of Grenoble 1/Albert Michallon University Hospital. The University of Grenoble provided compensation to the participating hospitals and universities for extra costs associated with the study.
FROM ESICM CONGRESS 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The day 28 invasive fungal infection–free survival was 68% with empirical micafungin and 60.2% with placebo, a nonsignificant difference.
Data source: A randomized controlled trial among 260 critically ill patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, Candida colonization, and multiple organ failure who were exposed to broad-spectrum antibacterial agents (EMPIRICUS trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Timsit disclosed that he receives lecture fees from Gilead, Pfizer, Merck, and Astellas; research grants to his university and research organization from Astellas, Gilead, Merck, and Pfizer companies; a consultancy honorarium from Bayer; and personal fees from Abbott for scientific board participation; additionally, he discloses participation on a scientific committee of epidemiological studies organized by Astellas and Merck companies outside the submitted work. Astellas provided a research grant to the Grenoble Alpes University Hospital based on the final study protocol. The study was sponsored by the University of Grenoble 1/Albert Michallon University Hospital. The University of Grenoble provided compensation to the participating hospitals and universities for extra costs associated with the study.