Multicenter Registry of Patients Receiving Systemic Mold-Active Triazoles for the Management of Invasive Fungal Infections

Abstract

Abstract

Introduction ‘Real-world’ data for mold-active triazoles (MATs) in the treatment of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are lacking. This study evaluated usage of MATs in a disease registry for the management of IFIs.

Methods Data were collected for this multicenter, observational, prospective study from 55 US centers, between March 2017 and April 2020. Eligible patients received isavuconazole, posaconazole, or voriconazole as MAT monotherapy (one MAT) or multiple/sequenced MAT therapy (more than one MAT) for prophylaxis or treatment. Patients were enrolled within 60 days of MAT initiation. The primary objective was to characterize patients receiving a MAT and their patterns of therapy. The full analysis set (FAS) included eligible patients for the relevant enrollment protocol, and the safety analysis set (SAF) included patients who received ≥ 1 MAT dose.

Results Overall, 2009 patients were enrolled in the SAF. The FAS comprised 1993 patients (510 isavuconazole; 540 posaconazole; 491 voriconazole; 452 multiple/sequenced MAT therapies); 816 and 1177 received treatment and prophylaxis at study index/enrollment, respectively. Around half (57.8%) of patients were male, and median age was 59 years. Among patients with IFIs during the study, the most common pathogens were Aspergillus fumigatus in the isavuconazole (18.2% [10/55]) and voriconazole (25.5% [12/47]) groups and Candida glabrata in the posaconazole group (20.9% [9/43]); the lungs were the most common infection site (58.2% [166/285]). Most patients were maintained on MAT monotherapy (77.3% [1541/1993]), and 79.4% (1520/1915) completed their MAT therapies. A complete/partial clinical response was reported in 59.1% (591/1001) of patients with a clinical response assessment. Breakthrough IFIs were reported in 7.1% (73/1030) of prophylaxis patients. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in 14.7% (296/2009) of patients (3.9% [20/514] isavuconazole; 11.3% [62/547] posaconazole; 14.2% [70/494] voriconazole).

Conclusions In this ‘real-world’ study, most patients remained on their initial therapy and completed their MAT therapy. Over half of patients receiving MATs for IFIs had a successful response, and most receiving prophylaxis did not develop breakthrough IFIs. ADRs were uncommon.