Title |
Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections with posaconazole or itraconazole in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or high‐risk myelodysplastic syndromes undergoing intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy: A real‐world comparison
|
---|---|
Published in |
Mycoses, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1111/myc.12728 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mar Tormo, Ariadna Pérez‐Martínez, Marisa Calabuig, Juan Carlos Hernández‐Boluda, Paula Amat, David Navarro, Carlos Solano |
Abstract |
This is an observational-retrospective study comparing the real-world outcomes associated with posaconazole vs. itraconazole as prophylaxis treatments. Two hundred and ninety-three patient admissions attributable to 174 patients were included in the study. Patients were treated with itraconazole (n = 114 admissions; 39%) or posaconazole (n = 179; 61%). Antifungal prophylaxis failure (APF) due to treatment-related adverse events (in 34 out of 293 patient admissions; 11.6%) was more frequent in the posaconazole group (6.1% vs. 15.1%; P = 0.024). There were 9 patient admissions for episodes of APF due to probable/proven breakthrough fungal infection (primary endpoint): 6 and 3 in the itraconazole and posaconazole group, respectively (5.3% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.095). All of them were associated with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). APF was more frequent with itraconazole (65% vs. 30%; P < 0.001), along with failure due to possible/probable/proven IPA (25% vs. 10%; P = 0.002) and overall failure by any of the three different causes of prophylaxis failure (70% vs. 38%; P < 0.001). In agreement with clinical trial data, this real-world evidence supports the use of posaconazole over itraconazole in AML or MDS patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 50% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 5 | 17% |
Researcher | 4 | 14% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
Unspecified | 3 | 10% |
Professor | 3 | 10% |
Other | 5 | 17% |
Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 45% |
Unspecified | 3 | 10% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 7% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 6 | 21% |