Voriconazole prophylaxis in leukemic patients: A retrospective single-center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections commonly occur in acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemia patients receiving chemotherapy. In these patients with acute leukemia, posaconazole prophylaxis is recommended; however, voriconazole may be a less costly alternative. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of voriconazole prophylaxis in acute leukemia patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of inpatients at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre between 2005 and 2017 was completed. Hospitalized adult acute leukemia patients who received voriconazole prophylaxis (cases) were compared to patients who received fluconazole or no prophylaxis during chemotherapy (controls). Statistical analyses comparing baseline characteristics, safety, and efficacy outcomes between the study cohorts were completed. A posaconazole literature-based weighted mean risk was compared to the voriconazole risk of invasive fungal infection identified in this study. RESULTS: Of 490 acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients, 83 controls and 92 cases were eligible. Case patients received an average of 24.4 ± 10.8 days of voriconazole prophylaxis. The incidence of proven or probable invasive fungal infections with voriconazole was 3.3% (3/92) versus 7.2% (6/83) in the control cohort (p > 0.05) and was comparable to the literature reported weighted incidence of invasive fungal infection with posaconazole (2.4 ± 2.1%; 95% CI 1.3%-3.4%; p > 0.05). Voriconazole was well tolerated by patients (91%; 84/91; seven discontinued due to asymptomatic elevated liver function tests). CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole prophylaxis was found to be safe, effective, and comparable to literature-based efficacy data for risk of invasive fungal infection with posaconazole antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute leukemia undergoing chemotherapy and could represent a significant cost advantage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".