Voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring: results of a prematurely discontinued randomized multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Voriconazole (VOR) levels are highly variable, with potential implications to both efficacy and safety. We hypothesized that VOR therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) will decrease the incidence of treatment failures and adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We initiated a prospective, randomized, non-blinded multicenter study to compare clinical outcomes in adult patients randomized to standard dosing (clinician-driven) vs. TDM (doses adjusted based on levels). VOR trough levels were obtained on day 5, 14, 28, and 42 (or at completion of drug; ± 3 days). Real-time dose adjustments were made to maintain a range between 1-5 μg/mL on the TDM-arm, while levels were assessed retrospectively in the standard-arm. Patient questionnaires were administered to assess subjective AEs. RESULTS: The study was discontinued prematurely, after 29 patients were enrolled. Seventeen (58.6%) patients experienced 38 AEs: visual changes (22/38, 57.9%), neurological symptoms (13/38, 34.2%), and liver abnormalities (3/38, 7.9%). VOR was discontinued in 7 (25%) patients because of an AE (4 standard-arm, 3 TDM-arm). VOR levels were frequently out of range in the standard-arm (8 tests >5 μg/mL; 9 tests <1 μg/mL). Three dose changes occurred in the TDM-arm for VOR levels <1 μg/mL. Levels decreased over time in the standard-arm, with mean VOR levels lower at end of therapy compared to TDM (1.3 vs. 4.6 μg/mL, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: VOR TDM has become widespread clinical practice, based on known variability in drug levels, which impaired accrual in this study. Although comparative conclusions are limited, observations of variability and waning levels over time support TDM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".