Journals | Policy | Permission

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Review

Volume 9, Number 6, June 2017, pages 451-456

Combination Antifungal Therapy: A Review of Current Data

Invasive fungal infections incidence is on the rise in the era of transplant medicine. Beside organ recipients, other high risk patients are susceptible to invasive fungal infections, including acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients, patients with congenital immunodeficiency syndromes and those with hematological malignancies.

On average, there are about 30,000 transplants performed each year in the United States [1]. This number is expected to increase because over 121,000 people in need for an organ are on the United States government waiting list [1]. With this, comes many new and old immunosuppressant medications and sometimes profound state of immunocompromise in thousands of hospitalized patients.

Of the fungal infections seen in immunosuppressed patients, invasive aspergillosis, fusarium infection, mucormycosis and invasive candida infection might be the most common ones, with a high mortality and a significant incidence of failure of therapy.

The evidence for using amphotericin with 5-flucytosine for cryptococcal infection to reduce mortality has been effectively proven [2], but beside this single indication for combination antifungal therapy, literature lacks well-controlled clinical trials to evaluate the adequacy, timing and risks for such combination in other invasive fungal infections.

The need for dual antifungal therapy stems from the ongoing risk of invasive fungal infection and the significant mortality related to fungal infections in immunosuppressed patients.

In an analysis of lethal infectious complications in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients, it has been found that infections are related to 11% of deaths. Of these infections, 28% are fungal, with an ongoing risk beyond the initial period of neutropenia [3].

In solid organ transplant recipients, the increasingly potent immunosuppressive agents have dramatically reduced the incidence of rejections at the expense of increased susceptibility to malignancies and opportunistic infections. The greatest risk has been reported to include aspergillus infection of the tracheal anastomosis after lung transplantation [4] and candida infection after pancreas or liver transplantation [5]. Some fungal infections are recipient derived and include aspergillus species infection with marijuana use [6], Cryptococcus neoformans infection with pigeon contact, and endemic fungi (Histoplasma capsulatum, Coccidioides immitis, and Paracoccidioides brasiliensis).

In an epidemiological study of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients, 515 invasive fungal infections were prospectively identified in 429 adults followed from 2004 to 2007, with most of these infections caused by Candida sp. (59%) [7]. While survival is improved compared to historical reports, invasive fungal infections still constitute a challenge for transplanted patients and healthcare providers [8].

Despite the need for effective and reliable approach for initial and salvage therapy for invasive fungal infections, the Infection Disease Society of America (IDSA) still recommends monotherapy for the majority of these infections.

For invasive aspergillosis, IDSA practice guidelines suggested use of amphotericin B (AmB) and its lipid derivative for initial and salvage treatment of invasive aspergillosis when voriconazole cannot be administered [9]. What is remarkable in these guidelines is that echinocandins are listed as effective in salvage therapy either alone or in combination against invasive aspergillosis. IDSA recognized that the combination of polyenes or azoles with echinocandins suggests additive or synergistic effect in some preclinical studies, but expressed uncertainty as how to interpret these findings [9].

IDSA notes few indications for combination antifungal (CAF) agents for treatment of candida infection including use of AmB with or without flucytosine for initial therapy for candida native valve endocarditis, candida CNS infection, azole-resistant Candida glabrata, ascending pyelonephritis and fluconazole-resistant candida endophthalmitis [10]. Guidelines also advise for the need to add intravitreal injection of either AmB or voriconazol to the systemic antifungal agent used in fluconazole-resistant Candida endophthalmitis when macular involvement is present or when the infection is associated with vitritis [10].

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease and European Confederation of Medical Mycology joint clinical guidelines for management of mucormycosis recommend surgical debridement and AmB or its lipid derivative for treatment of mucormycosis [11]. Posaconazole is strongly recommended for salvage treatment of mucormycosis. AmB combined with posaconazole or caspofungin is supported with moderate strength to be administered with intent to cure for refractory disease or in case of intolerance to prior antifungal therapy [11]. The same guidelines recommend monotherapy with voriconazole or lipid AmB monotherapy (combined with surgical debridement, reversal of immunosuppressive state, and removal of venous catheters) or posaconazole as salvage therapy for fusarium infection [11].

Many in vitro studies on antifungals showed that combinations can broaden the coverage, increase the fungicidal effect and decrease risk of development of resistance. Combined agents can have synergistic activity with decreased toxicity.

On the other hand, many studies have suggested that different concentrations of each drug combination can be associated with results that range from antagonism to synergy. Host factors greatly affect efficacy of an antifungal agent in the clinical setting and cannot always be simulated in in vitro studies or animal models. Issues of toxicities or decrease in efficacy can only be apparent when the combinations are studied in humans [12].

Studying multiple dose combinations in clinical setting is difficult considering the expense of clinical trials and limited number of research candidates. Probably, the combination of time and cost is currently the major factor limiting the number and power of the randomized clinical trials available on combination antifungals [13].

Many mechanisms for synergy between antifungals have been proposed. Terbinafine and azoles for instance, work on the same biochemical pathway by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis and thus impairing the function of the fungal cell membranes. This interaction was studied by Barchiesis et al in vitro against Candida albicans [14]. In this study, the synergistic activity was noted in more than 40% of the terbinafine-fluconazol and terbinafine-itraconazole combinations, without significant drop in this proportion on day 2 of incubation. Another remarkable finding was the absence of antagonism and the drop in minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of one or both medications when used in combination even when the definition of synergy was not reached.

Similar findings were reported when terbinafine-azole combination was studied in vitro against C. neoformans [15] and dermatophytes [16].

C. glabrata infection with low susceptibility to fluconazole might also benefit from terbinafine added to fluconazole, voriconazole or itraconazole [17].

AmB and azoles damage the cell membrane and allow increase uptake of other agents like flucytosine [18, 19]. It also allows agents like rifampin and quinolones to easily penetrate the fungal cell membranes and reach their target fungal DNA [20, 21].

Another mechanism of synergy includes simultaneous inhibition of different fungal cell targets, giving synergism between echinocandins (cell wall active) and AmB [22].

The antagonism amongst antifungals is one of the major elements that dictate the choice of any combination that might be useful in invasive fungal infections treatment. Clinicians can consider salvage treatment with combination antifungals in few situations but have to be aware that a wrong combination can decrease the fungicidal effect and sometimes increase the toxicity.

Similarly to synergism, antagonism mechanisms are diverse. The antagonism might be due to a direct action of both agents on the same site, decreasing the availability of one another or modification of a target in the fungal cell secondary to exposure to an antifungal, making the fungus less susceptible to another antifungal [23, 24]. These two mechanisms appear in the interaction between the azoles and AmB, where azoles prevent the synthesis of ergosterol, making the AmB that usually binds the ergosterol in the cell membrane inactive.

AmB is also believed to have partial antagonism with flucytosine by changing the cell membrane function [25], but this aspect of the interaction of amphotericin and flucytosine is still not well clarified in the in vitro studies, knowing that these two agents are used in the clinical setting in combination to treat cryptococcal infection (Table 1) [14-19, 24-26].

Click to view

Table 1. Suggested Mechanisms of Synergism and Antagonism [14-19, 24-26]

The idea of combining antifungals started more than 40 years ago with many case reports suggesting successful combination of flucytosine and AmB targeting cryptococcal meningitis [27]. Back then, a prospective clinical trial by Bennett et al compared AmB treatment of cryptococcal meningitis in non-HIV-infected patients with a regimen containing both flucytosine and AmB. The combination regimen showed higher cure rate and fewer relapses than the monotherapy with AmB, and more interestingly, the combination regimen showed less nephrotoxicity than the monotherapy regimen [28].

Since then, many reports confirmed these suggested benefits, but the duration of the induction-combination therapy remained debatable (treatment of cryptococcal meningitis with combination of AmB and flucytosine for 4 as compared with 6 weeks). The IDSA 2010 guidelines recommended 2 weeks of combination of AmB and flucytosine for most cases of cryptococcal meningitis, but also suggested at least 4 weeks of the same combination for the induction therapy in non-HIV-infected, non-transplants hosts, and at least 6 weeks for those with cerebral cyptococcoma [29].

In the combination of flucytosine with AmB, the main concern is the impaired glomerular filtration induced by the AmB that decreases elimination of the flucytosine and increases its level, thus, increasing not only its antimycotic activity [30], but also its immunosuppressive and hepatotoxic effect [31].

Most clinical experience of combination antifungals therapy has been obtained in the treatment of cryptococcal infection. For candidiasis, IDSA has mentioned few indications for CAF including native valve endocarditis, candida CNS infection, azole-resistant C. glabrata, ascending pyelonephritis and fluconazole-resistant candida endophthalmitis.

Despite the growing interest of CAF in invasive candida infections, clinicians should be aware of the antagonism and the high toxicity profiles of some of these combinations.

The combination of azole and AmB demonstrated antagonism that was explained by alteration of the ergosterol target by the azoles, reducing AmB activity [26]. This outcome was rejected by many other studies showing either indifferent effect [32] or additive therapeutic benefit [33].

A randomized, blinded clinical trial compared fluconazole alone versus fluconazole combined with AmB in treatment of candidemia (other than C. krusei). Non-neutropenic subjects studied showed higher rate and more rapid fungemia clearance when treated with the combination of azole and AmB.

Echinocandin with azole has been another well-known antifungal combination in the treatment of invasive candida infection. No clinical trials on this combination have been reported, but posaconazole combined with caspofungin or micafungin has been studied in vitro and in animals [34]. Chen et al demonstrated that posaconazole exhibits in vitro and in vivo synergy with caspofungin against C. albicans, including echinocandin-resistant isolates [35]. This finding was confirmed by a multilaboratory study conducted on C. albicans, C. glabrata and Candida parapsillosis, showing that a candida isolate with known resistance to azole or echinocandin can be susceptible to the two drugs combined, and more interestingly, demonstrating the absence of antagonism when posaconazole is combined with an echinocandin [36].

Monoclonal antibodies with antifungal effect have been also studied in combination with AmB. In a randomized controlled trial, combination of AmB with mycograb, a human recombinant monoclonal antibody against heat shock protein 90, revealed synergy against invasive candida, with a decrease in candida attributable deaths [37].

In conclusion, combination antifungal treatment in invasive candida infections is limited to only few indications. The combination of azole with AmB needs more clinical trial prior to its generalization and routine application in invasive candida treatment. For resistant and invasive infections, clinicians should do a thorough search of drug-drug interaction before adding a second antifungal to the treatment protocol. Wrong combinations can lead to antagonism and worsening of side effects with negative clinical repercussions on a patient that is already immunosuppressed and in critical condition.

Combination of AmB with caspofungin or posaconazole is recommended by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease for refractory disease caused by mucormycosis.

The combination polyene-caspofungin has been reported by retrospective studies to show improved outcomes, with higher success rate and better survival compared to monotherapy with AmB or its lipid formulation [38]. However, prospective clinical trials studying this combination are still lacking.

Currently, isavuconazole (ISAV), a triazole active against mucormycosis emerged and was found similar in efficacy to AmB. The VITAL clinical trial suggested that ISAV can be used for treatment of mucomycosis and is well tolerated [39]. No clinical trials or retrospective studies compared ISAV to the combination of AmB and posaconazole or caspofungin.

Treatment with immunostimulating agents has also been described in mucormycosis. In an immunosuppressed, polytrauma case in Brussel, Belgium, and after failure of AmB and posaconazole combination for intractable abdominal mucomycosis, combination interferon G and nivolumab was successfully used, suggesting that combination immunotherapy might be helpful in fungal sepsis treatment [40].

In summary, combination antifungals of AmB and caspofungin or posaconazole are a recommended treatment strategy for refractory mucormycosis. The options for the clinician are still very limited in case of intolerance or contraindication to AmB. More data are still needed regarding use of ISAV. The future might also show emergence of combination immunotherapy for treatment of this rare, aggressive fungal infection.

The indication currently accepted by IDSA for combination antifungals in invasive aspergillosis is in salvage therapy. This recommendation is endorsed by a meta-analysis published in 2014 showing that the CAF improves 12-week survival compared to monotherapy [41].

When using voriconazole, clinicians should be aware that it requires at least 5 days before achieving a steady state. Additionally, voriconazole metabolism is influenced significantly by concomitant medications [42]. This pharmacokinetic concept makes the combination of voriconazole with another antifungal, especially in severe disease and immunocompromised host, at least for an overlap period prudent and promising.

Studies on the combination antifungals for invasive aspergillosis are still limited and conflicting. A randomized controlled trial done on patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplants or hematopoietic malignancies showed that combination of voriconazole with anidulafungin leads to a higher survival compared to voriconazole monotherapy [43], whereas Raad et al demonstrated that combination of voriconazole with caspofungin does not result in better outcomes compared with voriconazole alone, as primary or salvage therapy, in hematological malignancy patients [44].

In its latest guidelines on invasive aspergillosis, IDSA reminded the clinicians of the uncertainty of combinations of echinocandins with azole or polyene. These combinations showed conflicting results in the data currently available in the literature. Infectious disease specialists should be careful when prescribing such combinations because antagonism in vivo has not been completely refuted.

In summary, use of CAF in invasive aspergillosis is under investigations, and so far has been verified in salvage therapy. Physicians should be aware of the discordant result of many combinations when studied in vivo versus in vitro, and preferably refer to the most recent guidelines mentioned above until more concrete evidence on the use of CAF is available (Table 2) [9-11, 33-35, 41, 43].

Click to view

Table 2. Commonly Used CAF Therapy [9-11, 33-35, 41, 43]

Author Contributions

All authors certify that they participated sufficiently in the intellectual content, the analysis of data. Each author has reviewed this final version of the manuscript and approves it for publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this manuscript.

1. Services UDoHaH. Organ procurement and transplantation network. MELD Calculator. OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Accessed November 2012; 6.
2. Day JN, Chau TT, Wolbers M, Mai PP, Dung NT, Mai NH, Phu NH, et al. Combination antifungal therapy for cryptococcal meningitis. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(14):1291-1302.
   doi pubmed
3. Gratwohl A, Brand R, Frassoni F, Rocha V, Niederwieser D, Reusser P, Einsele H, et al. Cause of death after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in early leukaemias: an EBMT analysis of lethal infectious complications and changes over calendar time. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;36(9):757-769.
   doi pubmed
4. Herrera JM, McNeil KD, Higgins RS, Coulden RA, Flower CD, Nashef SA, Wallwork J. Airway complications after lung transplantation: treatment and long-term outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(3):989-993; discussion 993-984.
5. Pappas PG, Alexander BD, Andes DR, Hadley S, Kauffman CA, Freifeld A, Anaissie EJ, et al. Invasive fungal infections among organ transplant recipients: results of the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET). Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(8):1101-1111.
   doi pubmed
6. Gargani Y, Bishop P, Denning DW. Too many mouldy joints - marijuana and chronic pulmonary aspergillosis. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2011;3(1):e2011005.
   doi pubmed
7. Neofytos D, Fishman JA, Horn D, Anaissie E, Chang CH, Olyaei A, Pfaller M, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2010;12(3):220-229.
   doi pubmed
8. Neofytos D, Horn D, Anaissie E, Steinbach W, Olyaei A, Fishman J, Pfaller M, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infection in adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: analysis of Multicenter Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH) Alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(3):265-273.
   doi pubmed
9. Patterson TF, Thompson GR, 3rd, Denning DW, Fishman JA, Hadley S, Herbrecht R, Kontoyiannis DP, et al. Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Aspergillosis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(4):e1-e60.
   doi pubmed
10. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, Clancy CJ, Marr KA, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Reboli AC, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(4):e1-50.
    doi
11. Cornely OA, Arikan-Akdagli S, Dannaoui E, Groll AH, Lagrou K, Chakrabarti A, Lanternier F, et al. ESCMID and ECMM joint clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of mucormycosis 2013. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(Suppl 3):5-26.
    doi pubmed
12. Johnson MD, MacDougall C, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Perfect JR, Rex JH. Combination antifungal therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(3):693-715.
    doi pubmed
13. Rex JH, Walsh TJ, Nettleman M, Anaissie EJ, Bennett JE, Bow EJ, Carillo-Munoz AJ, et al. Need for alternative trial designs and evaluation strategies for therapeutic studies of invasive mycoses. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(1):95-106.
    doi pubmed
14. Barchiesi F, Falconi Di Francesco L, Scalise G. In vitro activities of terbinafine in combination with fluconazole and itraconazole against isolates of Candida albicans with reduced susceptibility to azoles. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(8):1812-1814.
    pubmed
15. Guerra CR, Ishida K, Nucci M, Rozental S. Terbinafine inhibits Cryptococcus neoformans growth and modulates fungal morphology. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012;107(5):582-590.
    doi pubmed
16. Ashley ED, Johnson MD. Combination Antifungal Therapy. In: Essentials of Clinical Mycology. Springer. 2011:153-163.
    doi
17. Perea S, Gonzalez G, Fothergill AW, Sutton DA, Rinaldi MG. In vitro activities of terbinafine in combination with fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole against clinical isolates of Candida glabrata with decreased susceptibility to azoles. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(5):1831-1833.
    doi pubmed
18. Yamamoto Y, Maesaki S, Kakeya H, Yanagihara K, Ohno H, Ogawa K, Hirakata Y, et al. Combination therapy with fluconazole and flucytosine for pulmonary cryptococcosis. Chemotherapy. 1997;43(6):436-441.
    doi pubmed
19. Polak A. Synergism of polyene antibiotics with 5-fluorocytosine. Chemotherapy. 1978;24(1):2-16.
    doi pubmed
20. Sugar AM, Liu XP. Combination antifungal therapy in treatment of murine pulmonary mucormycosis: roles of quinolones and azoles. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(7):2004-2006.
    doi
21. Medoff G. Antifungal action of rifampin. Rev Infect Dis. 1983;5(Suppl 3):S614-619.
    doi pubmed
22. Petraitis V, Petraitiene R, Sarafandi AA, Kelaher AM, Lyman CA, Casler HE, Sein T, et al. Combination therapy in treatment of experimental pulmonary aspergillosis: synergistic interaction between an antifungal triazole and an echinocandin. J Infect Dis. 2003;187(12):1834-1843.
    doi pubmed
23. Scheven M, Scheven C, Hahn K, Senf A. Post-antibiotic effect and post-expositional polyene antagonism of azole antifungal agents in Candida albicans: dependence on substance lipophilia. Mycoses. 1995;38(11-12):435-442.
    doi pubmed
24. Sugar AM, Liu XP. Interactions of itraconazole with amphotericin B in the treatment of murine invasive candidiasis. J Infect Dis. 1998;177(6):1660-1663.
    doi
25. Shadomy S, Wagner G, Espinel-Ingroff E, Davis BA. In vitro studies with combinations of 5-fluorocytosine and amphotericin B. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975;8(2):117-121.
    doi pubmed
26. Baddley JW, Pappas PG. Antifungal combination therapy: clinical potential. Drugs. 2005;65(11):1461-1480.
    doi
27. Tobias JS, Wrigley PF, Shaw E. Combination antifungal therapy for cryptococcal meningitis. Postgrad Med J. 1976;52(607):305-308.
    doi pubmed
28. Bennett JE, Dismukes WE, Duma RJ, Medoff G, Sande MA, Gallis H, Leonard J, et al. A comparison of amphotericin B alone and combined with flucytosine in the treatment of cryptoccal meningitis. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(3):126-131.
    doi pubmed
29. Perfect JR, Dismukes WE, Dromer F, Goldman DL, Graybill JR, Hamill RJ, Harrison TS, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cryptococcal disease: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(3):291-322.
    doi pubmed
30. Francis P, Walsh TJ. Evolving role of flucytosine in immunocompromised patients: new insights into safety, pharmacokinetics, and antifungal therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15(6):1003-1018.
    doi pubmed
31. Vermes A, Guchelaar HJ, Dankert J. Flucytosine: a review of its pharmacology, clinical indications, pharmacokinetics, toxicity and drug interactions. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46(2):171-179.
    doi pubmed
32. Bachmann SP, Ramage G, VandeWalle K, Patterson TF, Wickes BL, Lopez-Ribot JL. Antifungal combinations against Candida albicans biofilms in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(11):3657-3659.
    doi pubmed
33. Rex JH, Pappas PG, Karchmer AW, Sobel J, Edwards JE, Hadley S, Brass C, et al. A randomized and blinded multicenter trial of high-dose fluconazole plus placebo versus fluconazole plus amphotericin B as therapy for candidemia and its consequences in nonneutropenic subjects. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(10):1221-1228.
    doi pubmed
34. Cui J, Ren B, Tong Y, Dai H, Zhang L. Synergistic combinations of antifungals and anti-virulence agents to fight against Candida albicans. Virulence. 2015;6(4):362-371.
    doi pubmed
35. Chen YL, Lehman VN, Averette AF, Perfect JR, Heitman J. Posaconazole exhibits in vitro and in vivo synergistic antifungal activity with caspofungin or FK506 against Candida albicans. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57672.
    doi pubmed
36. Chaturvedi V, Ramani R, Andes D, Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Ghannoum MA, Knapp C, et al. Multilaboratory testing of two-drug combinations of antifungals against Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, and Candida parapsilosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(4):1543-1548.
    doi pubmed
37. Pachl J, Svoboda P, Jacobs F, Vandewoude K, van der Hoven B, Spronk P, Masterson G, et al. A randomized, blinded, multicenter trial of lipid-associated amphotericin B alone versus in combination with an antibody-based inhibitor of heat shock protein 90 in patients with invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(10):1404-1413.
    doi pubmed
38. Reed C, Bryant R, Ibrahim AS, Edwards J, Jr., Filler SG, Goldberg R, Spellberg B. Combination polyene-caspofungin treatment of rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(3):364-371.
    doi pubmed
39. Marty FM, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Cornely OA, Mullane KM, Perfect JR, Thompson GR, 3rd, Alangaden GJ, et al. Isavuconazole treatment for mucormycosis: a single-arm open-label trial and case-control analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(7):828-837.
    doi
40. Eastern M. Nivolumab plus interferon-γ in the treatment of intractable mucormycosis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15:630-642.
41. Panackal AA, Parisini E, Proschan M. Salvage combination antifungal therapy for acute invasive aspergillosis may improve outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;28:80-94.
    doi pubmed
42. Karthaus M, Lehrnbecher T, Lipp HP, Kluge S, Buchheidt D. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis with voriconazole in cancer patients - an evidence-based approach. Ann Hematol. 2015;94(4):547-556.
    doi pubmed
43. Marr KA, Schlamm HT, Herbrecht R, Rottinghaus ST, Bow EJ, Cornely OA, Heinz WJ, et al. Combination antifungal therapy for invasive aspergillosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):81-89.
    doi pubmed
44. Raad, II, Zakhem AE, Helou GE, Jiang Y, Kontoyiannis DP, Hachem R. Clinical experience of the use of voriconazole, caspofungin or the combination in primary and salvage therapy of invasive aspergillosis in haematological malignancies. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;45(3):283-288.
    doi pubmed

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research is published by Elmer Press Inc.