Caspofungin as primary antifungal prophylaxis in stem cell transplant recipients

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of caspofungin as primary prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in stem cell transplant recipients who are poor candidates for triazole or lipid amphotericin B prophylaxis due to renal or hepatic dysfunction, and to determine whether any patient characteristics are independently associated with an increased risk of breakthrough invasive fungal infection during caspofungin prophylaxis. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-three adult stem cell transplant recipients who received caspofungin 35-50 mg/day for up to 100 days after transplantation as primary antifungal prophylaxis between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2005. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected on host and transplant characteristics such as transplant type, neutropenia, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and corticosteroid use, as well as evidence of breakthrough invasive fungal infections. Of the 123 patients, 117 (95.1%) were allogeneic recipients, and the median time to engraftment was 12 days (range 6-26 days). Fifty (40.7%) of the patients developed GVHD of grade 2 or greater and received corticosteroids for more than 21 days. Median duration of caspofungin prophylaxis was 73 days (range 10-100 days). Nine patients (7.3%) developed breakthrough invasive fungal infections (two cases of mixed Aspergillus species and one each of Aspergillus terreus, Rhizopus, Exserohilum, an unspecified mold, Cryptococcus, Candida glabrata, and Candida tropicalis). Median time to invasive fungal infection development was 65 days (range 12-88 days). Only one case occurred during the neutropenic period before engraftment. Multivariate analysis showed that Pseudomonas coinfection (p=0.04) and infliximab therapy (p=0.02) were associated with breakthrough invasive fungal infections in patients receiving caspofungin. By day 100, there were five (4.1%) deaths, two of which were directly attributable to invasive fungal infections. No caspofungin-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Caspofungin seems to be an effective and well-tolerated option for primary antifungal prophylaxis in the highly immunosuppressed stem cell transplant patient population.     

Echinocandins: role in antifungal therapy, 2005

Novel therapies to treat invasive fungal infections have revolutionised the care of patients with candidiasis, aspergillosis and other less common fungal infections. Physicians in the twenty first century have access to safer versions of conventional drugs (i.e., lipid amphotericin B products), extended-spectrum versions of established drugs (i.e., voriconazole), as well as a new class of antifungal agents; the echinocandins. The increased number of options in the antifungal armamentarium is well timed, as the incidence of both invasive candidiasis and invasive aspergillosis, and the financial burden associated with these infections, have increased significantly in the past several decades. The increasing incidence of fungal infections has risen in parallel with the increase in critically ill and immunocompromised patients. Candida is the fourth most common bloodstream isolate, approximately 50% of which are non-albicans species. Estimates suggest there to be 9.8 episodes of invasive candidiasis per 1000 admissions to surgical intensive care units, with attributable mortality at 30% and cost per episode of US44,000 dollars. The burden of candidiasis is even higher in the paediatric population, with Candida being the second most common bloodstream infection. The increase in non-albicans candidiasis mandates the introduction of new antifungal agents capable of treating these often azole-resistant isolates. In addition, there has been a rise in the incidence of invasive aspergillosis, the most common invasive mould infection following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, with an estimated incidence of 10 - 20%. The mortality associated with invasive aspergillosis has increased by 357% since 1980. Unfortunately, the overall survival rate among patients treated with amphotericin B, and even voriconazole, remains suboptimal, as evidenced by the failure of treatment in 47% of patients in the landmark voriconazole versus amphotericin B trial. Given the increasing incidence and suboptimal outcomes of these serious fungal infections, novel therapies represent an opportunity for significant advancement in clinical care. The current challenge is to discover the optimal place for the echinocandins in the treatment of invasive fungal infections.     

Invasive aspergillosis: epidemiology, diagnosis and management in immunocompromised patients

Morbidity and mortality caused by invasive Aspergillus infections are increasing. This is because of the higher number of patients with malignancies treated with intensive immunosuppressive therapy regimens as well as their improved survival from formerly fatal bacterial infections, and the rising number of patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell or organ transplantation. Early initiation of effective systemic antifungal treatment is essential for a successful clinical outcome in these patients; however, clinical clues for diagnosis are sparse and early microbiological proof of invasive aspergillosis (IA) is rare. Clinical diagnosis is based on pulmonary CT scan findings and non-culture based diagnostic techniques such as galactomannan or DNA detection in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Most promising outcomes can be expected in patients at high risk for aspergillosis in whom antifungal treatment has been started pre-emptively, backed up by laboratory and imaging findings. The gold standard of systemic antifungal treatment is voriconazole, which has been proven to be significantly superior to conventional amphotericin B and has led to a profound improvement of survival rates in patients with cerebral aspergillosis. Liposomal amphotericin B at standard dosages appears to be a suitable alternative for primary treatment, while caspofungin, amphotericin B lipid complex or posaconazole have shown partial or complete response in patients who had been refractory to or intolerant of primary antifungal therapy. Combination therapy with two antifungal compounds may be a promising future strategy for first-line treatment. Lung resection helps to prevent fatal haemorrhage in single patients with pulmonary lesions located in close proximity to larger blood vessels, but is primarily considered for reducing the risk of relapse during subsequent periods of severe immunosuppression. Strict reverse isolation appears to reduce the incidence of aspergillosis in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients and patients with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing aggressive anticancer therapy. Well designed, prospective randomised studies on infection control measures effective to prevent aspergillosis are lacking. Prophylactic systemic antifungal treatment with posaconazole significantly improves survival and reduces IA in acute myeloid leukaemia patients and reduces aspergillosis incidence rates in patients with intermediate-to-severe graft-versus-host reaction emerging after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Voriconazole prophylaxis may be suitable for prevention of IA as well; however, the results of large clinical trials are still awaited.     

Invasive aspergillosis in patients with hematologic malignancies

Invasive aspergillosis is an increasingly common and often fatal opportunistic fungal infection in patients with hematologic malignancies. Prolonged and profound neutropenia remains a key risk factor for the development of invasive aspergillosis. However, qualitative deficiencies in host immune responses resulting from prolonged corticosteroid therapy, graft-versus-host disease, and cytomegalovirus infection are important risk factors for the recurrence and progression of Aspergillus infections after bone marrow recovery. Early diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis remains a challenge, and few tools are available for monitoring its course once the diagnosis is established. Even with the recent introduction of new antifungal therapies, mortality in patients with invasive aspergillosis remains high, and uniformly effective prophylaxis or preemptive therapeutic strategies are lacking. Strategies such as combination antifungal therapy and immunotherapy often are used as first-line treatment approaches in patients with documented invasive aspergillosis despite a paucity of clinical trial data. Recent advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of invasive aspergillosis in patients with hematologic malignancies are reviewed. The problems and controversies associated with defining optimal treatment strategies for invasive aspergillosis in this heavily immunocompromised population are highlighted.     

Antifungal Prophylaxis to Prevent Invasive Mycoses Among Bone Marrow Transplantation Recipients

We reviewed the effect of systemic, intranasal, and lipid formulations of amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis. Specifically we reviewed the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal colonization, frequency of superficial and invasive mycosis, and overall mortality and that due to invasive mycoses in bone marrow transplantation recipients. A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify literature describing the risk factors, epidemiology, and chemoprophylaxis of invasive mycosis in these patients. Preliminary data published as abstracts at national infectious diseases and hematology conferences within the last 5 years were included. Antifungal prophylaxis reduces fungal colonization and superficial infection. The ability of antifungal prophylaxis to prevent systemic infection or reduce the need for empiric amphotericin B depends on specific variables. Ultimately, antifungal prophylaxis has no affect on overall mortality, and very little impact on mortality attributed to fungi.     

伏立康唑预防血液病患者侵袭性真菌感染的疗效与安全性

目的评价伏立康唑预防血液病患者化疗或造血干细胞移植(HSCT)后侵袭性真菌感染的有效性及安全性。方法检索Cochrane图书馆、Medline、Em-base、Pubmed、CBM、CNKI、维普、万方等文献数据库,用RevMan 5.1进行meta分析。结果纳入研究4项,共1372例患者,伏立康唑组的真菌感染发生率、曲霉感染率分别低于氟康唑组、对照组;而总死亡率、念珠菌感染率与对照组无显著性差异;伏立康唑的胃肠道不良反应发生率低于伊曲康唑,视觉障碍和肝功异常发生率高于伊曲康唑。结论伏立康唑预防血液病患者化疗或HSCT后侵袭性真菌感染的总体疗效优于氟康唑,与伊曲康唑相当,在预防侵袭性曲霉感染中优于氟康唑和伊曲康唑,但应警惕其引起视觉障碍和肝功异常。     

Antifungal chemoprophylaxis in children and adolescents with haematological malignancies and following allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: review of the literature and options for clinical practice

Invasive opportunistic fungal infections are important causes of morbidity and mortality in children and adolescents with cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Difficulties in establishing the diagnosis continue to delay antifungal therapy, and this has been shown to adversely impact on survival. Apart from ongoing attempts to improve early recognition, effective chemoprophylaxis of invasive fungal infections remains a goal of high priority in populations with disease-related incidence rates of 10% or higher. These include patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemias, recurrent leukaemias and those following allogeneic HSCT. Incidence rates in other paediatric cancer entities, including autologous HSCT, are considerably lower and do not justify the general implementation of antifungal prophylaxis. The difficulties in obtaining a timely diagnosis, the consequences of infectious morbidity on delaying anticancer treatment, and mortality rates >20% and >50% for invasive yeast and mould infections, respectively, provide a clear rationale for antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk populations. However, while antifungal prophylaxis has become part of infectious disease supportive care algorithms in most paediatric leukaemia and allogeneic transplantation programmes, antifungal prophylaxis remains a topic of controversy, with no clear consensus amongst different centres and groups. This is largely based on the limited paediatric data, with only a small number of meaningful studies, and on the fact that the scientific evidence for the benefit of antifungal prophylaxis has been generated exclusively by prospective, randomized, clinical phase III trials conducted in adults with comparable, but not similar conditions. In this article, we briefly review the epidemiology of invasive fungal infections in children and adolescents with cancer and following HSCT; delineate regulatory principles of paediatric drug development with relevant examples for their successful implementation with new antifungal compounds; provide information on the pharmacology and paediatric development of current antifungal compounds; discuss for each compound the evidence for effectiveness as primary or secondary antifungal prophylaxis in adults and the pertinent data published in paediatric patients; and conclude by providing practical options for prophylaxis in children and adolescents with haematological malignancies and following allogeneic HSCT.     

Posaconazole : a review of its use in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections

Posaconazole is a second-generation triazole antifungal agent with a broad spectrum of activity that includes Aspergillus spp., Candida spp. and the Zygomycetes. In the US, posaconazole oral suspension administered three times daily is indicated for prophylaxis against invasive Aspergillus and Candida infections in patients aged > or =13 years who are at high risk of developing these infections because of immunosuppression, such as haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), or those with haematological malignancies with prolonged neutropenia as a result of chemotherapy. EU-approved prophylactic indications for posaconazole are similar to those in the US.Posaconazole provided effective prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections and was generally well tolerated in two large, well designed trials in HSCT recipients with GVHD, or patients receiving induction-remission chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) that was expected to result in prolonged neutropenia. It offers coverage of clinically relevant pathogens and is potentially associated with fewer drug-drug interactions than other licensed triazole antifungal agents. Its usefulness in some patients may be limited by the lack of an intravenous formulation, although one is currently being developed. As with other antifungal agents, concerns remain regarding the potential emergence of resistance to broad-spectrum antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole. Despite this, posaconazole is a valuable emerging option for use as prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in immunocompromized patients who are at high risk of developing these infections.     

伊曲康唑在侵袭性真菌感染中的预防作用

由于免疫抑制剂的使用、血液系统恶性肿瘤病人异基因造血干细胞移植等高危人群的不断增多,侵袭性真菌感染的患病率和病死率均呈显著上升趋势。近年来伊曲康唑口服液和注射液相继在欧美及我国批准使用,对于高危病人伊曲康唑的预防性应用能显著降低侵袭性真菌感染的发生率。因此,本文拟从循证医学的角度,对伊曲康唑口服液和注射液在各种危重病病人侵袭性真菌感染中的预防作用作一综述。     

Prevention of fungal infections in the immunocompromised host

The incidence and severity of invasive fungal infections have significantly increased among immunocompromised hosts leading to excessive morbidity and mortality. Several preventative antifungal strategies (prophylaxis, empirical and pre-emptive) have been developed to improve the outcome of these infections. Although effective, these strategies are associated with toxicity, high cost and potential emergence of resistance. An alternative strategy, in the attempt to optimize the use of antifungal agents in preventing fungal infections, is a risk-adjusted approach based on the risk for, and severity of, infection in a given patient. This strategy has the potential to provide patients likely to suffer severe fungal infection the benefits of antifungal agents while avoiding the negative aspects (toxicity, cost and risk of resistance) in patients at low risk for these infections. In this review we focus on this strategy in cancer patients but it may also be applied to other immunocompromised hosts.     

Fungal infections in patients with neutropenia: challenges in prophylaxis and treatment

Fungal infections are a leading cause of mortality in patients with neutropenia. Candidiasis and aspergillosis account for most invasive fungal infections. General prophylactic measures include strict hygiene and environmental measures. Haemopoietic growth factors shorten the duration of neutropenia and thus may reduce the incidence of fungal infections. Fluconazole is appropriate for antifungal prophylaxis and should be offered to patients with prolonged neutropenia, such as high-risk patients with leukaemia undergoing remission induction or consolidation therapy and high-risk stem cell transplant recipients. Empirical antifungal therapy is mandatory in patients with persistent febrile neutropenia who fail to respond to broad-spectrum antibacterials. Intravenous amphotericin B at a daily dose of 0.6 to 1 mg/kg is preferred whenever aspergillosis cannot be ruled out. Lipid formulations of amphotericin B have demonstrated similar efficacy and are much better tolerated. Fluconazole is the best choice for acute candidiasis in stable patients; amphotericin B should be used in patients with unstable disease. Use of fluconazole is restricted by the existence of resistant strains (Candida krusei and, to a lesser extent, C. glabrata). Amphotericin B still remains the gold standard for invasive aspergillosis. Lipid formulations of amphotericin B are effective in aspergillosis and because they are less nephrotoxic are indicated in patients with poor renal function. Itraconazole is an alternative in patients who have good intestinal function and are able to eat. Mucormycosis, trichosporonosis, fusariosis and cryptococcosis are less common but require specific management. New antifungal agents, especially new azoles, are under development. Their broad in vitro spectrum and preliminary clinical results are promising.     

Antifungal prophylaxis in adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a frequent, costly and potentially life-threatening complication in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Most prevalent among the causative pathogens are Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. Risk factors that further increase the risk of IFIs in this patient population include allogeneic transplant and acute graft versus host disease. Among strategies to improve outcomes is the administration of antifungal prophylaxis. However, optimal administration requires the identification of patients who are at the highest risk of developing a fungal infection, thus restricting concerns of drug cost, toxicity and resistance to those most likely to benefit. Currently, there are several antifungal agents recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for the prophylaxis of IFIs. These include fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole and micafungin. Fluconazole was widely considered the standard agent for prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of mold infections. New data support the efficacy of the newer triazole posaconazole and the echinocandin micafungin in this patient population..     

Patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections: when and how to treat

When and how to treat invasive fungal infections (IFIs) is discussed in this review, with a focus on the two most prevalent non-endemic IFIs, namely invasive aspergillosis and invasive candidiasis. Early treatment initiation in patients with IFIs has a profound impact on mortality rates, but reliable diagnostic measures are lacking. This situation has led to the parallel use of different treatment strategies, e.g. prophylaxis, empirical and pre-emptive treatment, as well as targeted treatment in response to a definite diagnosis of IFI. Identifying high-risk patients is the first step in reducing IFI-related mortality. Patients at risk of invasive aspergillosis comprise (i) those with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) during remission induction chemotherapy; (ii) patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); (iii) recipients of solid organ transplants; and (iv) those with other conditions of severe and prolonged immunosuppression. Patients at high risk of invasive candidiasis are less well defined. Risk factors are diverse and include haematological malignancy, neutropenia, age <1 month or >65 years, and recent abdominal surgery. The individual risk further depends on the presence of a variety of other risk factors, including central venous catheters, use of broad spectrum antibacterials, prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay, total parenteral nutrition, mucosal Candida spp. colonization and renal failure.Extensive research has been conducted to facilitate the best possible treatment strategies for these severe infections. Optimal timing and choice of antifungal agents largely remain a matter of controversy. After having reviewed the major clinical trials, we conclude that comparisons between different treatment strategies cannot be made, neither at present nor in the near future. The complexity of the clinical problem leads to an eclectic treatment approach to reduce morbidity and mortality from IFIs without compromising tolerability. We recommend prophylaxis with posaconazole for allogeneic HSCT recipients, patients receiving induction chemotherapy for AML or MDS, and those undergoing immunosuppressive therapy for graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic HSCT. For the empirical treatment of persistently febrile neutropenia, caspofungin is our first- and liposomal amphotericin B deoxycholate (LAmB) our second-line choice. Once a diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis has been established, voriconazole should be the preferred treatment option, with LAmB being an alternative. Fluconazole prophylaxis for invasive candidiasis should remain restricted to high-risk ICU patients. Once a diagnosis has been established, the drug of choice for adequate treatment depends largely on neutrophil count and haemodynamic stability. In non-neutropenic patients, an echinocandin should be considered the first-line treatment option, while patients with susceptible Candida spp. may be switched to fluconazole. In neutropenic patients, caspofungin or micafungin might be preferred to anidulafungin as first-line treatment. LAmB is a second-line treatment option in both settings.Early diagnosis of IFIs is imperative to facilitate treatment success. In all patients at risk for IFIs, blood cultures, galactomannan antigen and diagnostic imaging should be rigorously enforced.     

Empiric antifungal therapy in patients with febrile neutropenia

Invasive fungal infections, most commonly candidiasis or aspergillosis, are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with neutropenia. Difficulty in diagnosing invasive fungal infections in these patients complicates decisions regarding pharmacotherapy. Because of the difficult diagnosis and the significant morbidity and mortality of fungal infections in patients with neutropenia, systemic antifungal agents are used as empiric antifungal therapy in patients with febrile neutropenia who are not responding to antibacterial therapy. The pharmacotherapy of invasive fungal infections has evolved rapidly within the past several years as numerous antifungal agents--different formulations of amphotericin B, azoles, and echinocandins--have become available for use as empiric antifungal therapy in patients with febrile neutropenia. Various levels of evidence support the use of these agents for this indication. Their use is limited, however, by drug intolerance, drug interactions, adverse-event profiles, and limited activity with some mold species. Thus, considerations for selecting an antifungal drug for empiric use in patients with febrile neutropenia should include the epidemiology of fungal infections in the individual patient's institution and the specific clinical circumstances of the patient.     

Novel approaches to antifungal prophylaxis

Antifungal prophylaxis represents a significant advance in the management of patients at risk from fungal infections in a variety of settings. Identification of patients at the highest risk and the utilisation of safe and effective drugs maximises the benefits of prophylaxis. Situations in which antifungal prophylaxis has been shown to be useful are bone marrow transplantation, liver and lung transplantation, surgical and neonatal intensive care units, secondary prophylaxis of fungal infections associated with HIV and neutropenia associated haematological malignancies and their treatment. New antifungal agents, such as the echinocandins and the new azoles, are available and have a potential role in antifungal prophylaxis. Future studies should evaluate which strategy is more useful; prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy.     

Novel approaches to antifungal prophylaxis

Antifungal prophylaxis represents a significant advance in the management of patients at risk from fungal infections in a variety of settings. Identification of patients at the highest risk and the utilisation of safe and effective drugs maximises the benefits of prophylaxis. Situations in which antifungal prophylaxis has been shown to be useful are bone marrow transplantation, liver and lung transplantation, surgical and neonatal intensive care units, secondary prophylaxis of fungal infections associated with HIV and neutropenia associated haematological malignancies and their treatment. New antifungal agents, such as the echinocandins and the new azoles, are available and have a potential role in antifungal prophylaxis. Future studies should evaluate which strategy is more useful; prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy.     

Fungal infections in bone marrow transplant recipients

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) can cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The two most notorious pathogenic fungal species in this group of patients are Candida and Aspergillus. Risk factors for IFIs include: prolonged neutropaenia; fungal overgrowth and conditioning regiment-related mucositis; graft versus host disease; and steroid therapy. Clinical manifestations can be protean, and radiological changes are frequently nonspecific. Diagnostic methods include culture- and nonculture-based techniques. Some experts recommend IFI prophylaxis in the high-risk groups, such as patients with severe graft versus host disease who require prolonged immunosuppressive therapy or patients with a previous history of aspergillosis. Treatment options include therapy with azoles, including the newer agent voriconazole, amphotericin and caspofungin.     

A comparative evaluation of properties and clinical efficacy of the echinocandins

With the increase in prevalence of fungal infections, newer antifungal agents are needed to effectively treat invasive disease, and at the same time minimize adverse effects from therapy. The echinocandins comprise a novel class of antifungals; their mechanism of action involves inhibiting 1,3-β-D-glucan synthase, which is essential in cell wall synthesis for certain fungi. All three echinocandins are US FDA-approved for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis. Caspofungin and anidulafungin are licensed for the treatment of candidemia, and other select forms of invasive candidiasis. Micafungin is at present the only echinocandin approved for prophylaxis of fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplants; whereas caspofungin is approved for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia. Although all three echinocandins are active against Aspergillus, only caspofungin is presently approved for salvage therapy in invasive aspergillosis. Combination therapy with echinocandins plus other licensed antifungal therapy shows promise in treating invasive aspergillosis. This article will explore the similarities and differences among the echinocandins.     

A comparative evaluation of properties and clinical efficacy of the echinocandins

With the increase in prevalence of fungal infections, newer antifungal agents are needed to effectively treat invasive disease, and at the same time minimize adverse effects from therapy. The echinocandins comprise a novel class of antifungals; their mechanism of action involves inhibiting 1,3-beta-D-glucan synthase, which is essential in cell wall synthesis for certain fungi. All three echinocandins are US FDA-approved for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis. Caspofungin and anidulafungin are licensed for the treatment of candidemia, and other select forms of invasive candidiasis. Micafungin is at present the only echinocandin approved for prophylaxis of fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplants; whereas caspofungin is approved for empiric therapy of febrile neutropenia. Although all three echinocandins are active against Aspergillus, only caspofungin is presently approved for salvage therapy in invasive aspergillosis. Combination therapy with echinocandins plus other licensed antifungal therapy shows promise in treating invasive aspergillosis. This article will explore the similarities and differences among the echinocandins.     

Cost effectiveness of itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies are associated with a high mortality rate and, therefore, require early treatment. As the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections is difficult, effective antifungal prophylaxis is desirable. So far, fluconazole has been the most commonly used. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of itraconazole compared with both fluconazole and no prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in haematological patients, mean age 51 years, in Germany and The Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a probabilistic decision model to fully incorporate the uncertainty associated with the risk estimates of acquiring an invasive fungal infection. These risk estimates were extracted from two meta-analyses, evaluating the effectiveness of fluconazole and itraconazole and no prophylaxis. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare sector; only medical costs were taken into account. All costs were reported in euro, year 2004 values.Cost effectiveness was expressed as net costs per invasive fungal infection averted. No discounting was performed, as the model followed patients during their neutropenic period, which was assumed to be less than 1 year. RESULTS: According to our probabilistic decision model, the monetary benefits of averted healthcare exceed the costs of itraconazole prophylaxis under baseline assumptions (95% CI: from cost-saving to euro 5000 per invasive fungal infection averted). Compared with fluconazole, itraconazole is estimated to be both more effective and more economically favourable, with a probability of almost 98%. CONCLUSIONS: In specific groups of neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies, itraconazole prophylaxis could potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditure, without harming effectiveness, in settings where fluconazole is common practice in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections.