Understanding antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole in hematology patients: an evolving bedside to bench story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two randomized controlled clinical trials have evaluated the utility of posaconazole in antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk hematology patients.1,2 Posaconazole use was associated with a significant reduction in fungal infections and death due to invasive fungal disease in patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplasia (AML/MDS)1 and those with graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.2 The strength of these trials and subsequent real life studies3,4 led to FDA and EMA approval of posaconazole in 2007 and widespread recommendations for posaconazole use by international guidelines.1,2,5–8 The success of posaconazole prophylaxis in the registration trials appear, however, to be at odds with the finding that serum levels of posaconazole were surprisingly low in both studies (Cavg of 583 ng/mL in AML/MDS and 1103 ng/mL in GVHD).9,10 Furthermore, serum posaconazole levels were paradoxically lowest in the AML/MDS trial in which the most dramatic clinical effect was observed. Since the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of posaconazole for most strains of Aspergillus fumigatus is 500 ng/mL,11 it would appear that in the AML/MDS trial essentially half the patients in this trial should have had insufficient drug exposure to offer protection against infection. This discrepancy between serum drug levels and observed efficacy has raised new questions about our understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of posaconazole in relation to its use for primary antifungal prophylaxis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".