4.7 Article

Superior Serum Concentrations with Posaconazole Delayed-Release Tablets Compared to Suspension Formulation in Hematological Malignancies

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 59, 期 8, 页码 4424-4428

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00581-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [U54GM104942]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Posaconazole (PCZ), approved for prophylaxis against invasive fungal disease in high-risk patients, is commercially available orally as a suspension formulation (PCZ-susp) and as a delayed-release tablet (PCZ-tab). We evaluated the serum steady-state concentrations (C-ss) of PCZ stratified by the administered formulation for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with myeloid malignancies (n = 150). The primary outcome was the attainment rate of the target C-ss of >= 700 ng/ml. Secondary outcomes included toxicity assessment (hepatotoxicity and corrected QT [QTc] interval prolongation) and breakthrough fungal infections. Patients who received the PCZ-susp (n = 118) or PCZ-tab (n = 32) and had PCZ C-ss assessment after at least 7 days of therapy were eligible. The median C-ss in the PCZ-susp group was 390 ng/ml (range, 51 to 1,870 ng/ml; mean, 436 ng/ml) compared to 1,740 ng/ml (range, 662 to 3,350 ng/ml; mean, 1,781 ng/ml) in the PCZ-tab group (P<0.0001). The percentages of patients achieving the target goal of >= 700 ng/ml were 17% versus 97%, respectively (P<0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 1 patient in each group. QTc interval measurements were available for 32 patients in the PCZ-susp group and for 12 patients in the PCZ-tab group, and prolonged intervals of grade 2 or higher were noted in 9% (n=3) and 17% (n=2), respectively (P=0.6). Breakthrough fungal infections in the PCZ-susp and PCZ-tab groups were 7% (n=8) and 3% (n=1), respectively (P=0.68). We conclude that the use of PCZ-tab was associated with higher Css and with the probability of achieving therapeutic goals without worsening of adverse effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据