MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334764430 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv133.01

Implementation of a Protocol for Posaconazole Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Remission-Induction Chemotherapy for Acute Leukemia: From Guidelines to Real-Life

2015· article· en· W2334764430 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane Morin-Quintal, Valéry Lavergne

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePosaconazoleIncidence (geometry)AspergillosisAcute leukemiaInduction chemotherapyClinical endpointNumber needed to treatInternal medicineLeukemiaChemotherapySurgeryRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalImmunologyAntifungalRelative riskAmphotericin BDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Posaconazole is effective in preventing invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing chemotherapy for acute leukemia. The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of invasive aspergillosis in a center before and after the implementation of a protocol for posaconazole prophylaxis and to evaluate its real-life adherence. Methods. We reviewed the medical charts of all adult patients admitted to the hematology ward for acute leukemia between October 2011 and September 2014. During the first 18 months, anti-aspergillus preemptive therapy was used, while patients received posaconazole prophylaxis in the second 18-month period. The primary endpoint was the incidence of invasive aspergillosis. In addition, we assessed the various difficulties linked to the application of the protocol. Results. We retrieved records for 65 patients with acute leukemia for a total of 106 courses of remission-induction chemotherapy. The incidence of proven or probable invasive aspergillosis reported was 9.7% (3 patients) in the preemptive group and 4.3% (1 patient) in the prophylaxis group. However, the 5.4% decrease in incidence is not statistically significant. When including possible invasive aspergillosis, the incidence decreased from 16.1% (5 patients) without prophylaxis to 8.7% (2 patients) with posaconazole. The number needed to treat varied from 14 to 19. Before and during the implementation of the prophylaxis protocol, many strategies were used to inform doctors and medical staff. During the preemptive therapy period, physicians adhered to the protocol in only 82% of treatments, as compared to 93.2% during the prophylaxis protocol (posaconazole prescription was omitted in 2.3% and delayed in 4.5%). Of note, posaconazole prophylaxis was interrupted in 2.3% (1 patient) due to intolerance. Conclusion. We found a reduction of the incidence of invasive aspergillosis in our center with the implementation of the new protocol. Despite adequate physician adherence to the protocol, there were still cases of infections. This may be possibly explained by a lower bioavailability of the oral-suspension posaconazole or more resistant strains. A third phase of this study could focus on the introduction of posaconazole delayed-release tablet. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207