Home | About IJMPO | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology
Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 37  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 53-58

Voriconazole is a safe and effective anti-fungal prophylactic agent during induction therapy of acute myeloid leukemia


1 Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Adyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Radiodiagnosis, Cancer Institute (WIA), Adyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Microbiology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Adyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Prasanth Ganesan
Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), 36, Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 036, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-5851.177032

Rights and Permissions

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) reduces the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) during induction therapy of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Posaconazole is considered the standard of care. Voriconazole, a generic cheaper alternative is a newer generation azole with broad anti-fungal activity. There is limited data on the use of voriconazole as a prophylactic drug. Materials and Methods: A single-center, prospective study was performed during which patients with AML undergoing induction chemotherapy received voriconazole as AFP (April 2012 to February 2014). Outcomes were compared with historical patients who received fluconazole as AFP (January 2011-March 2012, n = 66). Results: Seventy-five patients with AML (median age: 17 years [range: 1-75]; male:female 1.6:1) received voriconazole as AFP. The incidence of proven/probable/possible (ppp) IFI was 6.6% (5/75). Voriconazole and fluconazole cohorts were well-matched with respect to baseline characteristics. Voriconazole (when compared to fluconazole) reduced the incidence of pppIFI (5/75, 6.6% vs. 19/66, 29%; P < 0.001), need to start therapeutic (empiric + pppIFI) antifungals (26/75, 34% vs. 51/66, 48%; P < 0.001) and delayed the start of therapeutic antifungals in those who needed it (day 16 vs. day 10; P < 0.001). Mortality due to IFI was also reduced with the use of voriconazole (1/75, 1.3% vs. 6/66, 9%; P = 0.0507), but this was not significant. Three patients discontinued voriconazole due to side-effects. Conclusion: Voriconazole is an effective and safe oral agent for IFI prophylaxis during induction therapy of AML. Availability of generic equivalents makes this a more economical alternative to posaconazole.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1621    
    Printed10    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded347    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal