首页> 外文期刊>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice: official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners >Posaconazole versus voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis during induction therapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome
【24h】

Posaconazole versus voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis during induction therapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome

机译:波萨哥唑与voriconazole作为急性髓性白血病或骨髓增生术综合征的诱导治疗过程中的抗真癌唑

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective Patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing induction chemotherapy are at increased risk of invasive fungal infection due to prolonged, severe neutropenia. Due to this risk, national guidelines recommend invasive fungal infection prophylaxis in this population until the resolution of neutropenia. Although posaconazole has demonstrated superiority over fluconazole and itraconazole, there is limited evidence for voriconazole for invasive fungal infection prophylaxis in this population. Even less data are available comparing posaconazole and voriconazole directly. The study objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of delayed-release posaconazole tablets versus voriconazole for primary invasive fungal infection prophylaxis. The primary outcome was rate of discontinuation of either agent. Secondary outcomes included specific rates of discontinuation due to adverse events and drug-drug interactions, rates of breakthrough invasive fungal infection, and 30-day and 100-day mortality rates. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to NYU Langone Health between 1 January 2014 and 31 August 2017 and initiated on invasive fungal infection prophylaxis during induction or reinduction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Results In total, 77 patients were included in the study: 43 using posaconazole delayed-release tablets and 34 using oral voriconazole. In the posaconazole group, 30% of patients (n = 13) discontinued therapy for any reason compared with 35% (n = 12) of patients in the voriconazole group (p = 0.64). A higher percentage of patients in the voriconazole group discontinued due to adverse events (6 patients, 18% vs. 1 patient, 2%, p = 0.04). Mortality rates at 30 and 100 days were similar between both groups. No breakthrough invasive fungal infections was noted in either group. Conclusion Overall, discontinuations for any reason were similar in patients taking both posaconazole delayed-release and oral voriconazole. Both posaconazole delayed-release tablets and oral voriconazole appear to be effective at preventing invasive fungal infection in acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome patients undergoing induction chemotherapy, although posaconazole may be more tolerable.
机译:目的患有急性髓性白血病或髓细胞增生综合征的患者接受诱导化疗的血液侵袭性感染的风险增加,由于长期严重的中性粒细胞贫症。由于这种风险,国家指南建议在该人群中推荐侵入性真菌感染预防,直至进行中性粒细胞病变。虽然波萨昔唑在氟康唑和伊丙奈唑上展示了优势,但伏立康唑对该群体的侵袭性真菌感染预防有限的证据。甚至更少的数据都可以直接比较posaconazole和voriconazole。研究目的是探讨延迟释放的posaconazole片剂与voriconazole用于原发性侵入性真菌感染预防的疗效和安全性。主要结果是任一剂的停药率。二次结果包括由于不良事件和药物 - 药物相互作用,突破侵袭性真菌感染率和30天和100天死亡率导致的特定停药率。方法这是2014年1月1日至2017年8月3日期间纳豆植物健康的成年患者的回顾性队列研究,并在急性髓性白血病或髓细胞增生综合征的诱导或再生化疗中启动了侵袭性真菌感染预防。结果总计,77名患者纳入研究:43使用口香酰唑延迟释放片剂和34使用口服voriconazole。在posaconazole组中,30%的患者(n = 13)因voriconazole组的35%(n = 12)患者而停止治疗(p = 0.64)。由于不良事件(6名患者,18%,患者,2%,P = 0.04),voriconazole组患者患有较高的患者患者。两组之间30和100天的死亡率相似。在任一组中没有注意到任何突破性侵袭性真菌感染。结论总体而言,由于患有Posaconazole延迟释放和口服voriconazole的患者而言,出于任何原因的中断相似。双索昔唑延迟释放片剂和口服伏立康唑似乎有效地在预防急性髓性白血病和髓细胞转化综合征患者接受诱导化疗的患者中有效,尽管Posaconazole可能更容易耐受。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号