Melissa S Copley1, Madeline Waldron2, Vasilios Athans3, Sarah C Welch4, Kyle D Brizendine5, Eric Cober6, Caitlin Siebenaller7. 1. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: melissacopley9@gmail.com. 2. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: waldrom@ccf.org. 3. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: athansv@ccf.org. 4. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: welchs@ccf.org. 5. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: brizenk@ccf.org. 6. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: cobere@ccf.org. 7. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44195, United States. Electronic address: siebenc@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare itraconazole with posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with AML received either itraconazole or posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis while undergoing intensive chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was incidence of prophylaxis failure (change in antifungal agent due to suspected invasive fungal infection [IFI], drug intolerance, drug interaction, or adverse event). RESULTS: From February 2016 to January 2018, 90 patients were included in the itraconazole group and 45 patients in the posaconazole group. Prophylaxis failure occurred in 88% of itraconazole recipients compared with 33% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The primary reason for prophylaxis failure with itraconazole was suspected IFI (58%) whereas for posaconazole, failure predominantly related to drug interaction (60%). An antifungal regimen was continued upon discharge in 47% of itraconazole recipients compared with 9% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The use of breakthrough IFI diagnostic tests was not significantly different in the two groups. A larger proportion of drug concentrations were collected in the posaconazole group. CONCLUSIONS: In AML patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy, posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of prophylaxis failure and less need for continued antifungal therapy on discharge compared with itraconazole.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare itraconazole with posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with AML received either itraconazole or posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis while undergoing intensive chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was incidence of prophylaxis failure (change in antifungal agent due to suspected invasive fungal infection [IFI], drug intolerance, drug interaction, or adverse event). RESULTS: From February 2016 to January 2018, 90 patients were included in the itraconazole group and 45 patients in the posaconazole group. Prophylaxis failure occurred in 88% of itraconazole recipients compared with 33% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The primary reason for prophylaxis failure with itraconazole was suspected IFI (58%) whereas for posaconazole, failure predominantly related to drug interaction (60%). An antifungal regimen was continued upon discharge in 47% of itraconazole recipients compared with 9% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The use of breakthrough IFI diagnostic tests was not significantly different in the two groups. A larger proportion of drug concentrations were collected in the posaconazole group. CONCLUSIONS: In AMLpatients undergoing intensive chemotherapy, posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of prophylaxis failure and less need for continued antifungal therapy on discharge compared with itraconazole.