Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group. Liposomal amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of documented and suspected neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections. A randomized comparison of fluconazole with amphotericin B as empiric anti-fungal agents in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. Fluconazole versus amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy of unexplained fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients: a pragmatic, multicentre, prospective and randomised clinical trial. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of liposomal amphotericin B versus conventional amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of persistently febrile neutropenic patients. Low-dose amphotericin B lipid complex vs. conventional amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy of neutropenic fever in patients with hematologic malignancies--a randomized, controlled trial. Liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome) in the prophylaxis of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia: fluconazole compared with oral amphotericin B.
Voriconazole is a broad-spectrum triazole that is active against aspergillus species. We conducted a randomized trial to compare voriconazole with amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis.
                In this randomized, unblinded trial, patients received either intravenous voriconazole (two doses of 6 mg per kilogram of body weight on day 1, then 4 mg per kilogram twice daily for at least seven days) followed by 200 mg orally twice daily or intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate (1 to 1.5 mg per kilogram per day). Other licensed antifungal treatments were allowed if the initial therapy failed or if the patient had an intolerance to the first drug used. A complete or partial response was considered to be a successful outcome.
                A total of 144 patients in the voriconazole group and 133 patients in the amphotericin B group with definite or probable aspergillosis received at least one dose of treatment. In most of the patients, the underlying condition was allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation, acute leukemia, or other hematologic diseases. At week 12, there were successful outcomes in 52.8 percent of the patients in the voriconazole group (complete responses in 20.8 percent and partial responses in 31.9 percent) and 31.6 percent of those in the amphotericin B group (complete responses in 16.5 percent and partial responses in 15.0 percent; absolute difference, 21.2 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, 10.4 to 32.9). The survival rate at 12 weeks was 70.8 percent in the voriconazole group and 57.9 percent in the amphotericin B group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.88). Voriconazole-treated patients had significantly fewer severe drug-related adverse events, but transient visual disturbances were common with voriconazole (occurring in 44.8 percent of patients).
                In patients with invasive aspergillosis, initial therapy with voriconazole led to better responses and improved survival and resulted in fewer severe side effects than the standard approach of initial therapy with amphotericin B.
                Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society In patients with persistent fever and neutropenia, amphotericin B is administered empirically for the early treatment and prevention of clinically occult invasive fungal infections. However, breakthrough fungal infections can develop despite treatment, and amphotericin B has substantial toxicity.
                We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing liposomal amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy.
                The mean duration of therapy was 10.8 days for liposomal amphotericin B (343 patients) and 10.3 days for conventional amphotericin B (344 patients). The composite rates of successful treatment were similar (50 percent for liposomal amphotericin B and 49 percent for conventional amphotericin B) and were independent of the use of antifungal prophylaxis or colony-stimulating factors. The outcomes were similar with liposomal amphotericin B and conventional amphotericin B with respect to survival (93 percent and 90 percent, respectively), resolution of fever (58 percent and 58 percent), and discontinuation of the study drug because of toxic effects or lack of efficacy (14 percent and 19 percent). There were fewer proved breakthrough fungal infections among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (11 patients [3.2 percent]) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (27 patients [7.8 percent], P=0.009). With the liposomal preparation significantly fewer patients had infusion-related fever (17 percent vs. 44 percent), chills or rigors (18 percent vs. 54 percent), and other reactions, including hypotension, hypertension, and hypoxia. Nephrotoxic effects (defined by a serum creatinine level two times the upper limit of normal) were significantly less frequent among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (19 percent) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (34 percent, P<0.001).
                Liposomal amphotericin B is as effective as conventional amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with fever and neutropenia, and it is associated with fewer breakthrough fungal infections, less infusion-related toxicity, and less nephrotoxicity. It has been suggested that a better outcome of neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections can be achieved when high doses of lipid formulations of amphotericin B are used. We now report a randomized multicentre study comparing liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome, 5 mg/kg/d) to amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmB, 1 mg/kg/d) in the treatment of these infections. Of 106 possible patients, 66 were enrolled and analysed for efficacy: nine had documented fungaemia, 17 had other invasive mould infections and 40 had suspected pulmonary aspergillosis. After completion of the course medication, in the AmBisome group (n = 32) 14 patients had achieved complete response, seven a partial response and 11 were failures as compared to 6, 13 and 15 patients (n = 34) treated with AmB (P=0.09); P=0.03 for complete responders. A favourable trend for AmBisome was found at day 14, in patients with documented infections and in patients with pulmonary aspergillosis (P=0.05 and P=0.096 respectively). Mortality rates were lower in patients treated with AmBisome (adjusted for malignancy status, P=0.03). More patients on AmB had a >100% increase of their baseline serum creatinine (P<0.001). The results indicate that, in neutropenic patients with documented or suspected invasive fungal infections AmBisome 5 mg/kg/d was superior to AmB 1 mg/kg/d with respect to efficacy and safety. Several studies have documented the efficacy of amphotericin B as empiric antifungal therapy in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. Amphotericin, however, is a toxic drug. Fluconazole has broad-spectrum antifungal activity with an excellent safety profile. Although prophylactic use of fluconazole is widespread, its efficacy as an empiric antifungal agent has not been extensively investigated.
                We randomly assigned 106 patients with absolute neutropenia (< or = 500 cells microL) and persistent fever of undetermined origin (> 38 degrees C) despite 1 week of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy to receive either fluconazole 400 mg orally daily or amphotericin B 0.5 mg/kg/day. Patients with obvious invasive fungal infections were excluded, as were those with abnormal renal or hepatic function. Success was defined as defervescence with the initially assigned antifungal regimen without development of clinically evident invasive fungal infection.
                Six patients were excluded from the analysis, mostly because they did not have severe neutropenia. Forty-eight patients received amphotericin B, and 52 received fluconazole. Baseline clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters as well as duration of neutropenia (7.7 versus 6.9 days), duration of fever (7.8 versus 8.1 days), and duration of hospitalization (10.4 versus 8.3 days) were similar between those receiving amphotericin and fluconazole. Treatment success rates and mortality rates were similar in the two groups: 22 (46%) patients in the amphotericin group and 29 (56%) patients in the fluconazole group responded successfully to therapy (P = 0.3), whereas 16 (33%) patients in the amphotericin group and 14 (27%) patients in the fluconazole group died during hospitalization (P = 0.5). Adverse events such as chills and fever (4 versus 1), bronchospasm (2 versus none), severe hypokalemia (25 versus 12) and nephrotoxicity (9 versus 3) were more frequently observed in patients receiving amphotericin. Adverse prognostic factors included prolonged duration of neutropenia and pneumonia.
                These results suggest that fluconazole is an equally effective but less toxic alternative to amphotericin B as empiric antifungal therapy in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. Amphotericin B, despite its intrinsic servere toxicity, is the most commonly used empirical antifungal therapy in cancer patients with unexplained fever not responding to empirical antibacterial therapy. The aim of this study was to show whether fluconazole was as effective as, and less toxic than, amphotericin, with no effort made to compare the antifungal activity of the two drugs. A group of 112 persistently febrile (> 38 degrees C) and granulocytopenic (< 1000 cells/mm3) cancer patients, not receiving any absorbable antifungal antibiotic for prophylaxis, with a mean age of 27 years (range 1-73 years), undergoing chemotherapy for a variety of malignancies and with a diagnosis of unexplained fever after at least 96 h of empirical antibacterial therapy, were randomised to receive either fluconazole (6 mg/kg/day up to 400 mg/day) or amphotericin B (0.8 mg/kg/day) as empirical antifungal treatment. Patients were required to have normal chest X-rays at randomisation, no previous history of aspergillosis and negative surveillance cultures for Aspergillus. The intention-to-treat analysis showed defervescence and survival without treatment modification in 42 of 56 patients (75%) in the fluconazole group and in 37 of 56 (66%) in the amphotericin B group (P = 0.4). Duration of therapy was 6 days (95% CI = 4-8 days) in both groups. Death occurred in 3 patients (5%) in the fluconazole and in 2 (4%) in the amphotericin B group. No fungal death was documented in either group. Adverse events developed in 18 of 56 patients (32%) in the fluconazole group and in 46 of 56 (82%) in the amphotericin B group (P < 0.001). In the amphotericin B group, 5 patients had treatment discontinued because of toxicity, versus none in the fluconazole group, a difference which approached statistical significance (P = 0.06). This study shows that fluconazole is by far less toxic than amphotericin B and suggests that it might be as effective as amphotericin B, in pragmatical terms and for this specific indication. However, numbers are too small to allow definitive conclusions about efficacy, and the use of fluconazole for this indication remains experimental. Future studies should try to identify patients more at risk of fungal infections, with the aim of individualising antifungal approaches. In a randomized, double-blind, comparative, multicenter trial, liposomal amphotericin B was equivalent to conventional amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in febrile neutropenic patients, using a composite end point, but was more effective in reducing proven emergent fungal infections, infusion-related toxicities, and nephrotoxicity. The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacoeconomics of liposomal versus conventional therapy.
                Itemized hospital billing data were collected on 414 patients from 19 of the 32 centers that participated in the trial. Hospital length of stay and costs from the first dose of study medication to the time of hospital discharge were assessed.
                Hospital costs from the time of first dose to discharge were significantly higher for all patients who received liposomal amphotericin B ($48,962 v $43,183; P =.022). However, hospital costs were highly sensitive to the cost of study medication ($39,648 v $43,048 when drug costs were not included; P =.416). Using decision analysis models and sensitivity analyses to vary the cost of study medications and the risk of nephrotoxicity, the break-even points for the cost of liposomal therapy were calculated to range from $72 to $87 per 50 mg for all patients and $83 to $112 per 50 mg in allogeneic bone marrow transplant patients.
                The cost of liposomal amphotericin B and patient risk for developing nephrotoxicity play large roles in determining whether liposomal amphotericin B is cost-effective as first-line empirical therapy in persistently febrile neutropenic patients. Conventional amphotericin B (c-AmB) remains the empirical antifungal treatment of choice for neutropenic patients with persistent fever of unknown origin (FUO). Unfortunately, empirical treatment with c-AmB is hampered by its safety profile, with frequent infusion-related adverse events (IRAEs) and renal toxicity. Amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) has been investigated for this indication due to its low toxicity profile. The recommended dose of ABLC is 5 mg/kg/d, which is five to seven times higher than the recommended dose of c-AmB.
                This randomized, controlled trial includes 105 adult patients with hematologic malignancies and with FUO after receiving chemotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation. Patients were randomly allocated to receive ABLC at 1 mg/kg/d or c-AmB at 0.6 mg/kg/d for empirical antifungal therapy.
                The incidence of renal toxicity was significantly lower in the ABLC group, compared with c-AmB group: 8% vs. 32%, respectively (P = 0.003). The rates of IRAEs were similar in both groups (73% for ABLC vs. 77% for c-AmB). The overall response rate was 72% for ABLC compared with 48% for c-AmB (P = 0.018). This difference was mainly due to the significantly higher renal toxicity in the c-AmB group. The number of emergent fungal infections and overall mortality were similar in both groups.
                This randomized trial suggests that ABLC at 1 mg/kg/d produces less nephrotoxicity than c-AmB, without differences in the incidence of IRAEs and with similar efficacy.
                Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard 2004. Liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome) 2 mg/kg three times weekly was compared with placebo as prophylaxis against fungal infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation (BMT) for haematological malignancies. Prophylaxis began on day 1 of chemotherapy and continued until neutrophils regenerated or infection was suspected. Of 161 evaluable patients, 74 received AmBisome and 87 received placebo. Proven fungal infections developed in no patients on AmBisome and in three on placebo (3.4%) (P = NS). Suspected fungal infections requiring intervention with systemic antifungal therapy (usually amphotericin B) occurred in 31 patients on AmBisome (42%) and in 40 on placebo (46%) (P = NS). Suspected deep-seated infections developed in 21 (28.3%) and 31 (35.6%) patients, respectively (P = NS). Time to develop a suspected or proven deep-seated infection showed a trend in favour of AmBisome (P = 0.11). Fifty patients had fungal colonisation (48 with Candida spp, two with Aspergillus spp) of at least one body site during prophylaxis; 15 patients while receiving AmBisome (20%) and 35 while on placebo (40%) (P < 0.01). Time to colonisation was significantly delayed in the group receiving AmBisome (P < 0.05). Treatment-related toxicity was modest and no additional toxicity was observed in patients receiving AmBisome. AmBisome 2 mg/kg three times weekly is safe and reduces fungal colonisation in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or BMT. However, despite encouraging trends, prophylactic AmBisome did not lead to a significant reduction in fungal infection or in requirement for systemic antifungal therapy. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fluconazole and oral amphotericin B in preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia.
                A randomized, controlled, multicenter trial.
                30 hematologic units in tertiary care or university hospitals.
                820 consecutive, afebrile, adult patients with acute leukemia and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole, 150 mg, as a once-daily capsule, or amphotericin B suspension, 500 mg every 6 hours.
                An intention-to-treat analysis was done for 820 patients: 420 treated with fluconazole and 400 treated with oral amphotericin B.
                Definite systemic fungal infection occurred in 2.6% of fluconazole recipients and 2.5% of amphotericin B recipients; suspected systemic fungal infection requiring the empiric use of intravenous amphotericin B occurred in 16% of fluconazole recipients and 21% of oral amphotericin B recipients, a difference of 5 percentage points (95% CI for difference, -0.02% to 10%; P = 0.07). Superficial fungal infection was documented in 1.7% of fluconazole recipients compared with 2.7% of amphotericin B recipients, a difference of one percentage point (CI of difference, -0.9% to 3%; P > 0.2). The distribution of fungal isolates in systemic and superficial fungal infection was similar in both groups. The overall mortality rate accounted for 10% in both groups. An excellent compliance was documented for 90% of patients treated with fluconazole compared with 72% of those treated with amphotericin B suspension, a difference of 18 percentage points (CI for difference, 13% to 23%). Side effects were documented less frequently in fluconazole than in amphotericin B recipients (1.4% compared with 7%, a difference of 5.6 percentage points; CI for difference, 2% to 8%; P < 0.01).
                Fluconazole was at least as effective as oral amphotericin B in preventing systemic and superficial fungal infection and the empiric use of amphotericin B in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia but was better tolerated.
Liposomal amphotericin B is significantly more effective than voriconazole for empirical therapy of neutropenic cancer patients and should be preferred. For treatment of aspergillosis, there are no trials that have compared voriconazole with amphotericin B given under optimal conditions.