4.5 Article

European guidelines for antifungal management in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: summary of the ECIL 3-2009 Update

Journal

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 709-718

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2010.175

Keywords

antifungals; neutropenia; leukemia; SCT; Candida; Aspergillus

Funding

  1. Pfizer
  2. Merck Sharp Dohme
  3. Cephalon
  4. Gilead
  5. Gilead Sciences
  6. Merck
  7. Sharp Dohme
  8. Schering-Plough
  9. Astellas
  10. Basilea
  11. Bayer/Schering
  12. Celgene
  13. Genzyme
  14. Medac
  15. Menarini
  16. Merck/Schering-Plough
  17. Merck/Serono
  18. Molnlycke
  19. Novartis
  20. Optimer
  21. MSD
  22. Astellas Pharma
  23. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  24. Glaxo-Smith Beecham
  25. Wyeth
  26. Zeneus-Pharma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2005, several groups, including the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, the European Organization for Treatment and Research of Cancer, the European Leukemia Net and the Immunocompromised Host Society created the European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL). The main goal of ECIL is to elaborate guidelines, or recommendations, for the management of infections in leukemia and stem cell transplant patients. The first sets of ECIL slides about the management of invasive fungal disease were made available on the web in 2006 and the papers were published in 2007. The third meeting of the group (ECIL 3) was held in September 2009 and the group updated its previous recommendations. The goal of this paper is to summarize the new proposals from ECIL 3, based on the results of studies published after the ECIL 2 meeting: (1) the prophylactic recommendations for hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients were formulated differently, by splitting the neutropenic and the GVHD phases and taking into account recent data on voriconazole; (2) micafungin was introduced as an alternative drug for empirical antifungal therapy; (3) although several studies were published on preemptive antifungal approaches in neutropenic patients, the group decided not to propose any recommendation, as the only randomized study comparing an empirical versus a preemptive approach showed a significant excess of fungal disease in the preemptive group. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2011) 46, 709-718; doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.175; published online 26 July 2010

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available