Sign Up Now!
To sign up for our newsletter or print publications, please enter your contact information below.
First Name *
Last Name *
Email Address (Verify) *
We will request your mailing address on the next page.
We will request your mailing address on the next page.

Outcomes for Patients Receiving Ibrutinib with or without Antifungal Therapy

JHOP - December 2020 Vol 10, No 6 - Original Article, Graft-versus-Host-Disease, Leukemia
Kori Daniels, PharmD, BCOP; Arpita Gandhi, PharmD, BCOP; Locke Bryan, MD; Amber Clemmons, PharmD, BCOP
Dr Daniels was PGY2 Oncology Resident during the study, Augusta University Medical Center, University of Georgia College of Pharmacy; Dr Gandhi is Hematology/Oncology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, Emory Healthcare/Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA; Dr Bryan is Hematology/Oncology Physician, Augusta University Medical Center, Georgia Cancer Center; Dr Clemmons is Bone Marrow Transplant Pharmacist, Augusta University Medical Center, and Clinical Associate Professor, University of Georgia College of Pharmacy.
View additional articles by these authors
Download PDF

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib is a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor used in the treatment of lymphoid malignancies and chronic graft-versus-host disease. Although data have emerged suggesting a risk for fungal infections associated with ibrutinib therapy, no published studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ibrutinib and antifungal prophylaxis. Azole antifungals are cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitors usually used for the prevention and treatment of fungal infections. Ibrutinib’s prescribing information lists dose adjustment recommendations with concomitant CYP3A inhibitors. It is unknown what, if any, routine antifungal prophylaxis is being prescribed concomitant with ibrutinib, and how this may affect outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of antifungal prophylaxis in patients who received ibrutinib therapy at a single center, and to compare the impact of concomitant antifungal prophylaxis in patients who are receiving ibrutinib on safety and efficacy outcomes.

METHODS: This retrospective, single-center chart review included patients aged ≥18 years who were documented to have received ibrutinib therapy between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2018, at Georgia Cancer Center. The primary outcome measure was the rate of antifungal prophylaxis in patients who were receiving ibrutinib. For patients receiving azole prophylaxis, we assessed whether appropriate dose adjustment was made in accordance with the prescribing information, whether dose adjustment of ibrutinib affected efficacy, and whether dose adjustment influenced the safety, including the risk for fungal infections.

RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were included in the study. The most common indication for ibrutinib therapy was a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. In all, 5 (8%) patients were receiving concomitant azole antifungal prophylaxis and 3 (60%) of these patients were alive at the time of data collection. The reasons for death included underlying malignancy and failure to thrive. In all, 1 (2%) patient who was not receiving antifungal prophylaxis had a fungal infection and subsequently died from sepsis. Of the 57 patients not receiving antifungal prophylaxis, 48 were alive at the time of data collection; the reasons for death included malignancy (N = 7; 12%), infection (N = 1; 2%), and no documentation of cause (N = 1; 2%).

CONCLUSION: This retrospective chart review did not show a significantly increased rate of invasive fungal infections in patients who received ibrutinib therapy, despite a low rate of prophylaxis. These findings suggest that routine use of azole prophylaxis concomitant with ibrutinib therapy may not be warranted unless the patient has additional risk factors that necessitate antifungal prophylaxis.

Key Words: antifungal prophylaxis, azole prophylaxis, CYP3A inhibitors, fungal infections, ibrutinib therapy

J Hematol Oncol Pharm.
2020;10(6):334-338
Disclosures at end of text

Ibrutinib is a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor used for the treatment of a variety of lymphoid malignancies, as well as chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).1 The BTK pathway is involved in B-cell proliferation and survival, as well as macrophage receptor–mediated phagocytosis.2 Individuals with congenital loss of BTK expression have an increased risk for infections.1 Recently, data have emerged suggesting a risk for fungal infections in patients receiving ibrutinib; however, no published data currently exist on concomitant use of ibrutinib and antifungal prophylaxis or safety and efficacy outcomes of this combination therapy.2-6 It is unknown which, if any, antifungals are prescribed in clinical practice for patients who are receiving ibrutinib therapy.

Azole antifungals are widely used for the prevention and treatment of fungal infections and are inhibitors of cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A).7 Ibrutinib is a CYP3A substrate; therefore, it poses the potential for drug interactions when used in combination with azoles.8 The prescribing information for ibrutinib has specific recommendations for dose adjustments when used concomitantly with voriconazole, posaconazole, and other moderate or severe CYP3A inhibitors.8

In addition to the lack of data on the prescribing practices for antifungal prophylaxis in patients who are receiving ibrutinib therapy, the data are scant on details of antifungal prophylaxis in published reports on ibrutinib-associated fungal infections.3 Therefore, it is unknown if clinical outcomes differ for patients who are receiving ibrutinib therapy and antifungal prophylaxis versus those who are receiving ibrutinib without antifungal prophylaxis.

Our study assessed whether patients who were receiving ibrutinib at our Georgia Cancer Center also received azole prophylaxis. For patients receiving azole prophylaxis, we assessed whether appropriate dose adjustment was made in accordance with the prescribing information; whether dose adjustment of ibrutinib affected the efficacy; and whether dose adjustment affected the safety, including the risk for having fungal infections.

Methods

In this retrospective, single-center chart review approved by the local investigational review board, we assessed patients aged ≥18 years with documentation of receiving ibrutinib (ie, medication discoverable through insurance fill history, physician documentation of the patient taking the medication). The chart review included patients receiving treatment at the center between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2018.

The primary outcome was the rate of azole prophylaxis in patients receiving ibrutinib. Secondary outcomes for all patients included the rate of ibrutinib and/or azole discontinuation resulting from adverse events associated with either agent, the rate of fungal infections, the time to cancer progression, the time from ibrutinib initiation to death, and the reason for death.

Additional outcomes for patients who received azole prophylaxis included appropriateness of ibrutinib dose adjustment and the duration of concomitant exposure to ibrutinib and the azole. In patients who had a fungal infection, the rate of mortality due to fungal infection was determined. Descriptive statistics were used for all outcomes.

Results

We identified a total of 64 patients using a report of ibrutinib prescriptions. Of these, 2 patients were excluded because they had no documentation of receipt of the drug. For the 62 evaluated patients, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57-72 years), with a female predominance (N = 34; 55%). Patient characteristics are outlined in Table 1.

table 1

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was the most common diagnosis with an approved indication for ibrutinib therapy among the study patients (N = 37; 60%). Other diagnoses with approved indications for ibrutinib included chronic GVHD (N = 8; 13%),

marginal zone lymphoma (N = 6; 10%), mantle-cell lymphoma (N = 2; 3%), and several diagnoses with no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (N = 9; 15%).

These 9 diagnoses with no FDA-approved indications included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (N = 6), B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (N = 2), and primary central nervous system lymphoma (N = 1). All the patients had received ibrutinib therapy for a median of 307 days (IQR range, 106-626 days), and 29 (47%) patients were still receiving ibrutinib therapy at the time of study data collection.

In addition, 7 (11%) patients had preemptive dose reductions and 56 (90%) patients started therapy with an FDA-approved dose for their specific disease. The reasons for incorrect dose reductions included poor performance status (N = 1; 2%), concomitant use of a moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor that did not require a dose adjustment according to the prescribing information (N = 1; 2%), and no documented reason for initiating a lower dose (N = 4; 6%).

In all, 5 (8%) patients were receiving concomitant azole prophylaxis (Figure 1), which included voriconazole (N = 1), fluconazole (N = 1), posaconazole (N = 1), and isavuconazonium sulfate (N = 2; Figure 2). The primary and secondary treatment outcomes are described in Table 2.

figure 1
figure 2
table 2

Of the 5 patients who received prophylactic azoles, 3 (60%) had appropriate ibrutinib dose adjustments. The median duration of concomitant exposure to ibrutinib and prophylaxis azoles was 66 days (IQR, 41-347 days). Of the 5 patients receiving azole prophylaxis, 1 patient died because of the underlying malignancy and another because of failure to thrive; the remaining 3 patients were alive at the time of study data collection. The median time to follow-up from the start of ibrutinib therapy for these 5 patients was 82 days (IQR, 41-383 days).

A total of 8 (13%) patients discontinued ibrutinib therapy because of adverse events, including 1 of the 5 patients receiving a concomitant azole. The reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation included bleeding events (N = 3; 38%), thrombocytopenia (N = 2; 25%), skin rash, atrial fibrillation, and gastrointestinal intolerance (N = 1; 12% each). No patients in the study discontinued the azole prophylaxis because of an adverse event.

In the overall study population, only 1 (2%) patient had a fungal infection while receiving ibrutinib; this patient subsequently died from the infection after receiving antifungal treatment. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the sinuses identified the infection, but the patient’s condition was too unstable to undergo debridement and a culture had not been collected to identify a pathogen. The patient had not received concomitant antifungal prophylaxis.

Overall, 12 (19%) patients had disease progression, which occurred at a median of 250 days (IQR, 101-624 days) from the initiation of ibrutinib therapy. The reasons for death included underlying malignancy (N = 8; 13%), failure to thrive (N = 1; 2%), and 1 undocumented cause. Patients died a median of 224 days (IQR, 118-594 days) from the time of ibrutinib initiation.

Discussion

Several published studies have described the incidence of invasive fungal infections in patients receiving ibrutinib.1,3-6 Varughese and colleagues evaluated serious infections in patients with lymphoid cancer who received ibrutinib; they found that 16 (4%) of 378 patients had fungal infections, including invasive aspergillosis, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, and cryptocococcis.3 By contrast, Visentin and colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of 795 patients with CLL and found that only 11 (1.4%) patients had an invasive fungal infection after a median follow-up of 8.5 years.4

In patients who are receiving ibrutinib therapy, the time to onset of fungal infections is variable and has been reported to range from less than 1 month and up to 3 years after the initiation of ibrutinib therapy.2,5

Ghez and colleagues performed a multicenter survey in France and identified 33 patients who had invasive fungal infections while receiving ibrutinib.6 The median time to diagnosis of the infection was 3 months (range, 1-30 months), with 28 (85%) of the 33 cases occurring within 6 months and 20 (61%) of the 33 cases occurring within 3 months.6 These findings suggest that patients receiving ibrutinib are at a high risk for fungal infections, particularly at the beginning of treatment.

Of note, only 1 of these studies addressed whether patients received antifungal prophylaxis, but the authors did not comment about the duration of the antifungal prophylaxis or the timing of initiation or discontinuation of ibrutinib therapy.3 Some of the patients in these studies who had an invasive fungal infection had baseline characteristics that are known to increase the risk for a fungal infection.

Chamilos and colleagues reported 41 cases of invasive fungal infection in patients receiving ibrutinib.1 All these patients were receiving treatment for a hematologic malignancy, 9 (22%) of these patients were reported to have received concomitant corticosteroids, and 5 (12%) patients were reported to have received previous treatment with fludarabine.

Varughese and colleagues reported that 5 (31%) of 16 patients who had an invasive fungal infection had received concomitant corticosteroids and 3 (19%) patients had previously received fludarabine,3 and Ghez and colleagues reported that 4 (12%) of 33 patients with an invasive fungal infection received concomitant corticosteroids, but they did not report the number of patients who had received a purine analog.6

To our knowledge, to date, only 1 study has evaluated the concomitant use of azole medications and ibrutinib. Cummins and colleagues assessed 8 patients who are receiving concomitant isavuconazonium sulfate and ibrutinib for adverse events. Patients were receiving a varied dose of ibrutinib, including 140 mg (N = 3), 280 mg (N = 1), dose reduction to 280 mg after receiving the full dose (420 mg) for 4 days (N = 1), and no dose adjustments (N = 3).7

According to the prescribing information, ibrutinib 280 mg daily was the recommended dose adjustment.8 In the study by Cummins and colleagues, 1 patient had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with an ibrutinib dose of 140 mg, and ibrutinib was later discontinued.8 The patient subsequently died from cancer progression 218 days after a fungal infection diagnosis with Aspergillus fumigatus. One patient had worsening thrombocytopenia while receiving 140 mg, and ibrutinib was discontinued. Another patient died 92 days after fungal infection diagnosis presumably because of cancer progression. In addition, 2 patients had transient corrected QT prolongation; however, the ibrutinib dose was not reported.7 The small sample size makes it difficult to extrapolate the safety of concomitant use of ibrutinib with isavuconazonium sulfate or the impact of ibrutinib dose modifications on the time to disease progression.

Currently, no guidelines exist regarding routine antifungal prophylaxis concomitant with ibrutinib therapy. In our study, all 5 patients who received azole prophylaxis were receiving ibrutinib for chronic GVHD, and the azole was initiated before the initiation of ibrutinib. Of these 5 patients, 3 were started with the appropriate initial ibrutinib dose. According to the prescribing information of ibrutinib, for the indication of chronic GVHD, concomitant mild and moderate CYP3A inhibitors do not require an ibrutinib dose reduction (from 420 mg), whereas concomitant voriconazole does require ibrutinib dose adjustment.8 One patient who was prescribed isavuconazonium sulfate prophylaxis received a dose reduction of ibrutinib which is not recommended.8 The patient who received voriconazole did not have an ibrutinib dose reduction.

The only patient who had an invasive fungal infection during ibrutinib therapy was not receiving azole prophylaxis. The patient had a diagnosis of CLL and had an infection 7 months after the initiation of ibrutinib therapy. The diagnosis of a fungal infection was based on a CT scan of the sinuses, showing an inflammatory process with a significant lytic component highly suspicious for invasive fungal sinusitis, and a serum Beta-D-glucan assay showed a positive result after the patient died. Liposomal amphotericin B was prescribed for treatment, but the patient subsequently died from sepsis because of the infection 224 days from ibrutinib initiation.

There is a paucity of data regarding the efficacy and safety outcomes for patients who are receiving ibrutinib therapy with concomitant antifungal prophylaxis compared with patients who are receiving ibrutinib without prophylaxis. With only 5 patients in our study receiving concomitant azole prophylaxis, meaningful comparisons between the groups cannot be done. Future studies are required to answer this critical question.

Limitations

A retrospective chart review requires heavy reliance on adequate physician documentation. In this study, documentation of the cause of death, the reason for preemptive dose reduction, and concomitant medications used at the time of ibrutinib prescribing was missing from the medical record for multiple patients.

In addition, several patients were lost to follow-up, limiting the longitudinal assessment. As an academic referral center, the most common reason for patients lost to follow-up was the patients returning to their local oncologist. Those who were lost to follow-up were censored at the time of the last documentation in the medical record.

We also did not capture data on whether a patient had fungal infection onset during ibrutinib therapy, discontinued ibrutinib because of an adverse event, had cancer progression, or died beyond follow-up in our system.

Finally, the small sample size of 62 patients limits the generalizability to the overall patient population of those receiving ibrutinib therapy.

Conclusion

Our retrospective chart review did not show a significantly increased rate of invasive fungal infections associated with the use of ibrutinib therapy, despite a low rate of azole prophylaxis; therefore, routine use of azole prophylaxis with ibrutinib may not be warranted unless the patient has additional risk factors that necessitate antifungal prophylaxis. Healthcare providers should continue to prescribe prophylactic azoles according to current indication-specific guideline recommendations for ibrutinib (ie, chronic GVHD, secondary prophylaxis). Further studies are needed to determine potential differences, if any, in safety and efficacy outcomes in patients receiving concomitant azoles and ibrutinib therapy.

Author Disclosure Statement

Dr Daniels, Dr Gandhi, Dr Bryan, and Dr Clemmons have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. Chamilos G, Lionakis MS, Kontoyiannis DP. Call for action: invasive fungal infections associated with ibrutinib and other small molecule kinase inhibitors targeting immune signaling pathways. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:140-148.
  2. Baron M, Zini JM, Belval TC, et al. Fungal infections in patients treated with ibrutinib: two unusual cases of invasive aspergillosis and cryptococcal meningoencephalitis. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58:2981-2982.
  3. Varughese T, Taur Y, Cohen N, et al. Serious infections in patients receiving ibrutinib for treatment of lymphoid cancer. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:687-692.
  4. Visentin A, Gurrieri C, Imbergamo S, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of invasive fungal infections among 795 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia from the Padua University. Blood. 2016;128:2527.
  5. Kreiniz N, Bejar J, Polliack A, Tadmor T. Severe pneumonia associated with ibrutinib monotherapy for CLL and lymphoma. Hematol Oncol. 2018;36:349-354.
  6. Ghez D, Calleja A, Protin C, et al; for the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO) CLL group. Early-onset invasive aspergillosis and other fungal infections in patients treated with ibrutinib. Blood. 2018;131:1955-1959.
  7. Cummins KC, Cheng MP, Kubiak DW, et al. Isavuconazole for the treatment of invasive fungal disease in patients receiving ibrutinib. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60:527-530.
  8. Imbruvica (ibrutinib) capsules/tablets, for oral use [prescribing information]. Sunnyvale, CA: Pharmacyclics; Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech; April 2020.
Related Items
Denosumab for First-Line Treatment of Hypercalcemia Associated with Malignancy: Retrospective Analysis
Katherine P. Morgan, PharmD, BCOP, CPP, Yujiao Sun, PharmD, Allison Deal, Jared Weiss, MD, Amber Cipriani, PharmD, BCOP
JHOP - June 2021 Vol 11, No 3 published on June 16, 2021 in Original Article
Immune-Related Adverse Events Linked to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Retrospective Analysis of a Single-Center Veteran Population
Jessica M. Tran, PharmD, BCPS, Ni-Chi Wu, PharmD, BCOP, BCPS, Rajkumar J. Sevak, PhD, RPh, Pankaj Gupta, MD, FACP
JHOP - June 2021 Vol 11, No 3 published on June 16, 2021 in Original Article
Pharmacy Resident–Led Medication Reconciliation and Patient Education Service in Adults with Leukemia Receiving Anticancer Oral Agents: A Pilot Study
Lily Y. Jia, PharmD, BCOP, Jessie Signorelli, PharmD, BCOP, Samantha O. Luk, PharmD, BCOP, E. Bridget Kim, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, Gayle C. Blouin, PharmD, BCOP
JHOP - June 2021 Vol 11, No 3 published on June 16, 2021 in Original Article
Corrections
JHOP - June 2021 Vol 11, No 3 published on June 16, 2021 in Original Article
Assessment of High-Dose Methotrexate Management Guideline in Adults with Cancer at an Academic Medical Center
Andrew Kowalski, PharmD, BCOP, Sara Mohamed Jaszczur, PharmD, BCOP, Michelle Nadeau-Nguyen, PharmD, BCPS, Man-Yee Merl, PharmD, BCOP
JHOP - April 2021 Vol 11, No 2 published on April 27, 2021 in Original Article, Dose Escalation/Reduction, Oncology Pharmacy Guidelines
Comparison of Direct Oral Factor Xa Inhibitors versus Warfarin for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Obese or Overweight Patients: A Retrospective Analysis
Jennifer C. Cook, PharmD, Tracy E. Wiczer, BCOP, PharmD, Anthony T. Gerlach, PharmD, FCCM, FCCP, Caitli Linger, PharmD, Meghan E. Ritchey, PharmD Candidate, Bridgette M. Zickefoose, PharmD, Tzu-Fei Wang, MD, Kristin I. Brower, BCPS, PharmD
JHOP - April 2021 Vol 11, No 2 published on April 27, 2021 in Original Article, Thromboembolism, Obesity
Vyxeos Now Indicated for Pediatric Patients with AML
JHOP - April 2021 Vol 11, No 2 published on April 27, 2021 in FDA Updates, Leukemia, Pediatric Cancer
Oral Azacitidine Prolongs Survival in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Robert J. Ignoffo, PharmD, FASHP, FCSHP, FHOPA
JHOP - April 2021 Vol 11, No 2 published on April 27, 2021 in From the Literature, Leukemia
Incidence of Adverse Effects in Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia or Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia in Lymphoid Blast Crisis Receiving Ponatinib with or without Concomitant Azole Antifungals
JHOP - March 2021 Vol 11 Special Feature published on April 9, 2021 in HOPA Abstracts, Adverse Events, Leukemia
Results from informCLL, a Prospective Observational Registry: Prognostic Biomarker Testing, Treatment Patterns, and Dosing in 1461 Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma
JHOP - March 2021 Vol 11 Special Feature published on April 9, 2021 in HOPA Abstracts, Clinical Trials, Leukemia, Lymphoma
Copyright © Green Hill Healthcare Communications, LLC. All rights reserved.