| For patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with VEN-HMAs, no clear benefit from administering antifungal prophylaxis was observed for all patients |
| For patients who are expected to have lower response to VEN-HMAs, such as those with adverse-risk genetics, antifungal prophylaxis should be strongly considered |
| If the decision is made to administer antifungal prophylaxis, no class of antifungal had an advantage over another |
| Micafungin is an acceptable choice that can allow administration of venetoclax without dose modification |
| Limited data support administering azoles with appropriate venetoclax dose reduction without impacting AML response |
| For de novo AML patients who achieve CR with neutrophil recovery, the benefit of continuing antifungal prophylaxis during postremission cycles remains debatable |
| Although our data did not show a clear benefit of antifungal prophylaxis for patients with r/r AML treated with VEN-HMAs, who are at a higher risk for IFIs, based on their higher risk we recommend antifungal prophylaxis, particularly for the following subsets: |
| Patients with lower likelihood of response due to adverse risk genetics |
| Early post-alloHCT relapse |
| Secondary prophylaxis for patients with history of IFIs |
| For patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with VEN-HMAs, no clear benefit from administering antifungal prophylaxis was observed for all patients |
| For patients who are expected to have lower response to VEN-HMAs, such as those with adverse-risk genetics, antifungal prophylaxis should be strongly considered |
| If the decision is made to administer antifungal prophylaxis, no class of antifungal had an advantage over another |
| Micafungin is an acceptable choice that can allow administration of venetoclax without dose modification |
| Limited data support administering azoles with appropriate venetoclax dose reduction without impacting AML response |
| For de novo AML patients who achieve CR with neutrophil recovery, the benefit of continuing antifungal prophylaxis during postremission cycles remains debatable |
| Although our data did not show a clear benefit of antifungal prophylaxis for patients with r/r AML treated with VEN-HMAs, who are at a higher risk for IFIs, based on their higher risk we recommend antifungal prophylaxis, particularly for the following subsets: |
| Patients with lower likelihood of response due to adverse risk genetics |
| Early post-alloHCT relapse |
| Secondary prophylaxis for patients with history of IFIs |