Posaconazole: an oral triazole with an extended spectrum of activity.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the published clinical data on posaconazole, critically review the New Drug Application data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, and provide information critical for evaluation and formulary positioning. DATA SOURCES: Reported investigations were identified from MEDLINE (1966-June 30, 2008), bibliographies of manuscripts, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and www.fda.gov. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language articles were selected. All available in vitro, animal, clinical, and human studies describing the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and adverse events of posaconazole were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Posaconazole is an oral broad-spectrum triazole with activity against many yeasts and molds. Resistance to posaconazole has been reported, but has been rare to date. Posaconazole, in doses of 200 mg 3 times daily, reduced breakthrough invasive fungal infections (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.71) and aspergillosis incidence (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.75) in patients receiving hematopoietic stem-cell transplants compared with those receiving fluconazole. Similarly, the same regimen of posaconazole reduced invasive fungal infections (95% CI -9.7 to -2.5) and aspergillosis (CI not reported, p < 0.001) when compared with fluconazole and itraconazole in neutropenic patients. Posaconazole is noninferior to fluconazole for treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis (95% CI -6.6 to 5.0), but necessity for this indication remains unclear, as many other treatment options exist. Smaller investigations have analyzed use of posaconazole for patients requiring salvage or alternative treatment for zygomycosis, fusariosis, cryptococcal meningitis, coccidioidomycosis, and histoplasmosis. Studies are needed to clarify efficacy for such expanded use, and therapeutic drug monitoring may improve outcomes. The most common adverse effects associated with the use of posaconazole include headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Posaconazole appears to be a valuable and promising addition to the antifungal armamentarium for prophylaxis and treatment of various fungal processes. At this time, posaconazole should probably be reserved for prophylaxis in patients at high risk for invasive fungal infection, as salvage therapy in refractory or resistant infections, or for patients with intolerance to other therapies.

Leukopenia complicates cytomegalovirus prevention after renal transplantation with alemtuzumab induction.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of morbidity after transplantation. Valganciclovir (VGCV) is commonly utilized for CMV prophylaxis but can cause leukopenia, with risk compounded by the use of myelosuppressive immunosuppression. By utilizing a preemptive therapeutic strategy with VGCV targeted only toward patients at risk for developing CMV disease, the rate and extent of leukopenia may be reduced. METHODS: VGCV prophylactic and preemptive strategies were compared in renal transplant recipients receiving alemtuzumab induction and prednisone-free maintenance with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Patients were risk-stratified by CMV serologic status. All donor seropositive/recipient seronegative (D+/R-) patients, February 2002-January 2004 (n=32), received prophylaxis with VGCV 450 mg daily for 3 months. Outcomes of D+/-/R+ patients were compared. Patients in the first cohort, February 2002-October 2002 (n=61), received prophylaxis as described. In the second cohort, October 2002-January 2004 (n=110), patients were monitored by quantitative CMV-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) every 2 weeks for 3 months. If the CMV load was above laboratory threshold, VGCV 450 mg daily was initiated for 1 month or until viremia cleared. RESULTS: Comparing preemptive therapy versus prophylaxis in D+/-/R+ patients, there was a lower incidence of leukopenia (67% vs. 82%, P=0.039) and trend toward less granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use (24% vs. 33%, P=0.196), but higher CMV disease rate (15% vs. 3%, P=0.02). One limitation was strategy compliance: 41% (7 of 17) of preemptive patients who developed CMV missed at least 1 CMV-PCR before diagnosis. One-year patient (98.2% vs. 98.4%) and death-censored graft (100% vs. 98.4%) survival was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral toxicity may be decreased with preemptive therapy, but effectiveness for CMV prevention seems dependent upon monitoring compliance.