Open forum infectious diseases · 2024
MSG-15: Super-Bioavailability Itraconazole Versus Conventional Itraconazole in the Treatment of Endemic Mycoses-A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Comparative Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spec Andrej, Thompson George R, Miceli Marisa H, Hayes Justin, Proia Laurie, McKinsey David, Arauz Ana Belen, Mullane Kathleen, Young Jo-Ann, McGwin Gerald, McMullen Rachel, Plumley Tyler, Moore Mary K, McDowell Lee Ann, Jones Carolynn, Pappas Peter G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal disease caused by dimorphic fungi is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Super-bioavailability itraconazole (SUBA-itra) is a novel antifungal agent with pharmacokinetic advantages over currently available formulations. In this prospective comparative study, we report the outcomes of patients with endemic fungal infections (histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, and sporotrichosis).
METHODS: This open-label randomized trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics SUBA-itra compared with conventional itraconazole (c-itra) treatment for endemic fungal infections. An independent data review committee determined responses on treatment days 42 and 180.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled for IFD (SUBA-itra, n = 42; c-itra, n = 46) caused by Histoplasma (n = 51), Blastomyces (n = 18), Coccidioides (n = 13), or Sporothrix (n = 6). On day 42, clinical success was observed with SUBA-itra and c-itra on day 42 (in 69% and 67%, respectively, and on day 180 (in 60% and 65%). Patients treated with SUBA-itra exhibited less drug-level variability at days 7 (P = .03) and 14 (P = .06) of randomized treatment. The concentrations of itraconazole and hydroxyitraconazole were comparable between the 2 medications (P = .77 and P = .80, respectively). There was a trend for fewer adverse events (AEs; 74% vs 87%, respectively; P = .18) and serious AEs (10% vs 26%; P = .06) in the SUBA-itra-treated patients than in those receiving c-itra. Serious treatment-emergent AEs were less common in SUBA-itra-treated patients (12% vs 50%, respectively; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: SUBA-itra was bioequivalent, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating endemic fungi, with a more favorable safety profile than c-itra.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03572049.
METHODS: This open-label randomized trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics SUBA-itra compared with conventional itraconazole (c-itra) treatment for endemic fungal infections. An independent data review committee determined responses on treatment days 42 and 180.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled for IFD (SUBA-itra, n = 42; c-itra, n = 46) caused by Histoplasma (n = 51), Blastomyces (n = 18), Coccidioides (n = 13), or Sporothrix (n = 6). On day 42, clinical success was observed with SUBA-itra and c-itra on day 42 (in 69% and 67%, respectively, and on day 180 (in 60% and 65%). Patients treated with SUBA-itra exhibited less drug-level variability at days 7 (P = .03) and 14 (P = .06) of randomized treatment. The concentrations of itraconazole and hydroxyitraconazole were comparable between the 2 medications (P = .77 and P = .80, respectively). There was a trend for fewer adverse events (AEs; 74% vs 87%, respectively; P = .18) and serious AEs (10% vs 26%; P = .06) in the SUBA-itra-treated patients than in those receiving c-itra. Serious treatment-emergent AEs were less common in SUBA-itra-treated patients (12% vs 50%, respectively; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: SUBA-itra was bioequivalent, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating endemic fungi, with a more favorable safety profile than c-itra.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03572049.