Saul Yanovich

BACKGROUND: Patients with neutropenia and persistent fever are often treated empirically with amphotericin B or liposomal amphotericin B to prevent invasive fungal infections. Antifungal triazoles offer a potentially safer and effective alternative. METHODS: In a randomized, international, multicenter trial, we compared voriconazole, a new second-generation triazole, with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy. RESULTS: A total of 837 patients (415 assigned to voriconazole and 422 to liposomal amphotericin B) were evaluated for success of treatment. The overall success rates were 26.0 percent with voriconazole and 30.6 percent with liposomal amphotericin B (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -10.6 to 1.6 percentage points); these rates were independent of the administration of antifungal prophylaxis or the use of colony-stimulating factors. There were fewer documented breakthrough fungal infections in patients treated with voriconazole than in those treated with liposomal amphotericin B (8 [1.9 percent] vs. 21 [5.0 percent], P=0.02). The voriconazole group had fewer cases of severe infusion-related reactions (P<0.01) and of nephrotoxicity (P<0.001). The incidence of hepatotoxicity was similar in the two groups. Patients receiving voriconazole had more episodes of transient visual changes than those receiving liposomal amphotericin B (22 percent vs. 1 percent, P<0.001) and more hallucinations (4.3 percent vs. 0.5 percent, P<0.001). Parenteral voriconazole was changed to the oral formulation in 22 percent of the voriconazole group, with a reduction in the mean duration of hospitalization by one day in all patients (P=0.17) but by two days in patients at high risk (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole is a suitable alternative to amphotericin B preparations for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a complication of intensive chemotherapy and radiotherapy with no effective treatment. We tested the ability of palifermin (recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor) to decrease oral mucosal injury induced by cytotoxic therapy. METHODS: This double-blind study compared the effect of palifermin with that of a placebo on the development of oral mucositis in 212 patients with hematologic cancers; 106 patients received palifermin (60 microg per kilogram of body weight per day) and 106 received a placebo intravenously for three consecutive days immediately before the initiation of conditioning therapy (fractionated total-body irradiation plus high-dose chemotherapy) and after autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Oral mucositis was evaluated daily for 28 days after transplantation. RESULTS: The incidence of oral mucositis of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 was 63 percent in the palifermin group and 98 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). Among patients with this degree of mucositis, the median duration of mucositis was 6 days (range, 1 to 22) in the palifermin group and 9 days (range, 1 to 27) in the placebo group. Among all patients, regardless of the occurrence of mucositis, the median duration of oral mucositis of WHO grade 3 or 4 was 3 days (range, 0 to 22) in the palifermin group and 9 days (range, 0 to 27) in the placebo group (P<0.001). As compared with placebo, palifermin was associated with significant reductions in the incidence of grade 4 oral mucositis (20 percent vs. 62 percent, P<0.001), patient-reported soreness of the mouth and throat (area-under-the-curve score, 29.0 [range, 0 to 98] vs. 46.8 [range, 0 to 110]; P<0.001), the use of opioid analgesics (median, 212 mg of morphine equivalents [range, 0 to 9418] vs. 535 mg of morphine equivalents [range, 0 to 9418], P<0.001), and the incidence of use of total parenteral nutrition (31 percent vs. 55 percent, P<0.001). Adverse events, mainly rash, pruritus, erythema, mouth and tongue disorders, and taste alteration, were mild to moderate in severity and were transient. CONCLUSIONS: Palifermin reduced the duration and severity of oral mucositis after intensive chemotherapy and radiotherapy for hematologic cancers.

The objective of this study was to investigate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of oral voriconazole in subjects at high risk of developingfungal infections. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, dose escalation study with a fluconazole active control. Twenty-four subjects with hematological malignancies, solid tumors, or autologous bone marrow transplants were randomized to receive voriconazole 200 mg q 12 h (n = 9), voriconazole 300 mg q 12 h (n = 9), or fluconazole 400 mg OD (n = 6)for a period of 14 days. Blood samples were taken for the assessment of voriconazole pharmacokinetics in plasma on Days 1 and 14. Using a 200 mg q 12 h dosing regimen, geometric mean voriconazole peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) were 904 ng/ml on Day 1 and 2996 ng/ml on Day 14. Geometric mean voriconazole exposure, as measured by the area under the curve within a dosing interval (AUCtau), was 4044 and 20308 ng x h/ml on Days 1 and 14, respectively. On Day 1, geometric mean Cmax and AUC were 1.80- and 1.94-fold higher in subjects receiving voriconazole 300 mg q 12 h than in those receiving 200 mg q 12 h. Similarly, on Day 14, geometric mean Cmax and AUC were 1.56- and 1.80-fold greater in the high-dose group. Although the confidence intervals are large, this trend suggests nonlinearity in pharmacokinetics with respect to dose as seen in healthy volunteers. The absorption of orally administered voriconazole was relatively rapid, with t(max) achieved in 1.7 to 3.0 hours. There was a mean 5.4- and 5.0-fold accumulation of voriconazole over the 14-day study period in the 200 mg and 300 mg q 12 h dose groups, respectively. Voriconazole was generally safe and well tolerated. Mild, reversible visual disturbances were the most commonly reported adverse event but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. No patient developed a breakthrough fungal infection. It was concluded that in this group of patients at risk of fungal infection, voriconazole pharmacokinetics was consistent with that reported in healthy volunteers.

PURPOSE: High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with peripheral-blood progenitor cell (PBPC) and autologous bone marrow (ABM) transplant (T) has documented survival benefits for relapsed Hodgkin's disease (HD) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Treatment costs associated with HDC and its supportive care have restricted its use both on and off clinical trial. In a prospective randomized clinical trial, filgrastim-mobilized PBPCT resulted in faster recovery of bone marrow function, with less hospitalization and supportive care than ABMT. This study was undertaken to analyze the costs of the two strategies using prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial that compared filgrastim-mobilized PBPCT versus ABMT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical results and resource utilization from a randomized clinical trial that compared filgrastim-mobilized PBPCT versus ABMT following carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) HDC for HD and NHL are presented. The trial was performed in six centers in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Resource utilization data were used to project costs and Massay Cancer Center (MCC) in the United States incurred the cost of treating the cohort. Costs were projected to the United States, because the economic implications to United States centers are significant, costs of care vary markedly among countries but resource utilization on this trial did not, and a randomized trial is unlikely to be performed in the United States. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with relapsed HD or NHL underwent HDC with BEAM. The PBPCT and ABMT groups had similar short-term survival after BEAM. PBPCT patients had a shorter hospitalization (median, 17 v 23 days; P = .002), neutrophil recovery (11 v 14 days; P = .005), platelet recovery to > or = 20 x 10(9)/L (16 v 23 days; P = .02), and days of platelet transfusions (6 v 10; P < .001). Estimated costs were $8,531 for ABM harvest and $5,760 for PBPC collection, including filgrastim mobilization. The total estimated average cost was $59,314 for each ABMT patient versus $45,792 for each PBPCT patient. Cost savings of $13,521 (23%) were due to shorter hospitalizations with less supportive care. CONCLUSION: PBPCT is as safe and more effective than ABMT for HD and NHL in the short term. PBPCT represents a significant cost savings due to lower autograft collection costs, shorter hospital stays, and less supportive care. The savings exceed the costs for filgrastim mobilization and PBPC collection. Actual savings will vary depending on local practice patterns, charges, and costs.