Posaconazole versus voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis for invasive fungal diseases in patients with hematological malignancies.

AML MDS Posaconazole invasive fungal infection voriconazole

Journal

Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners
ISSN: 1477-092X
Titre abrégé: J Oncol Pharm Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9511372

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Apr 2024
Historique:
medline: 24 4 2024
pubmed: 24 4 2024
entrez: 24 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The incidence of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) has risen in hematologic malignancy patients due to neutropenia. While posaconazole is recommended as the first-line antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients and voriconazole is an alternative, there is currently no direct comparison data available to assess their relative effectiveness. We retrospectively reviewed eligible patient charts from January 2017 to February 2019 to identify breakthrough IFD rates, drug adverse event frequency, and drug acquisition cost in AML/MDS patients. Forty-eight patients received 130 chemo cycles, with 50 (38%) cycles prescribed posaconazole and 80 (62%) prescribed voriconazole as primary IFD prophylaxis. The incidence rates of IFD in the posaconazole group were 8% (4 out of 50), of which two were probable and two were possible infections, while 6.26% (5 out of 80) of patients in the voriconazole group developed IFD, with four possible infections and one probable infection ( The use of voriconazole instead of posaconazole for 130 chemo cycles would save $166,584.6. Posaconazole and voriconazole have comparable efficacy and safety in preventing IFD in AML and MDS patients receiving chemotherapy. However, posaconazole is more costly than voriconazole.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38656201
doi: 10.1177/10781552241246119
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

10781552241246119

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Auteurs

Reem Almutairy (R)

Pharmaceutical Care, King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Pharmaceutical Care Department, King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Mansoor Ahmed Khan (MA)

Pharmaceutical Care, King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Alaa Shahbar (A)

Faculty of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Practices Department, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Mohammed Aseeri (M)

Pharmaceutical Care, King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Majed Alshamrani (M)

Pharmaceutical Care, King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Hassan Almarhabi (H)

King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Internal Medicine, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Doaa Naeem (D)

Pharmaceutical Care, King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Classifications MeSH