755. Posaconazole versus voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis for invasive fungal diseases in patients with hematological malignancies. (31st December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Almutairy, Reem F; Khan, Mansoor; Alshamrani, Majed; Marhabi, Hassan; Naeem, Doaa
• Is Part Of: Open forum infectious diseases. Volume 7:Number 1(2020) Supplement
• Page Start: S425
• Page End: S425
• Publication Date: 2020-12-31
• Subjects: Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Medical microbiology -- Periodicals; Infection -- Periodicals; 616.9
• DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.945
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2328-8957

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The incidence of Invasive Fungal Diseases (IFDs) has dramatically increased in patients with hematologic malignancies due to prolonged neutropenia. IFDs are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to these risks, international guidelines have recommended antifungal prophylaxis for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. Posaconazole has been recommended as the prophylactic agent of choice. Also, voriconazole has been recommended by guidelines with different levels of recommendations. Data on a direct comparison between Posaconazole delayed-release tablets (DR) and Voriconazole for IFD prophylaxis are lacking. Therefore, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of the fungal prophylaxis; voriconazole versus posaconazole in AML/MDS patients at Princess Nourah Oncology Center, Jeddah Methods: Retrospective chart review study for eligible patients from January 2017 to February 2019 to identify the breakthrough IFD rates and assess the frequency of adverse events within AML/MDS patients at PNOC, Saudi Arabia Results: A total of 48 patients (130 chemo cycles) were included in the study: 50 using posaconazole (DR) and 80 using oral voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis. The incidence rates of IFD in the posaconazole group was 8 % (4/50) of those 2 were probable, and 2 were possible infections while 6.26 % (5/80) of patients in the voriconazole group have developed IFD of them 4 had a possible infection, and one had a probable infection (p=0.7325). A higher percentage of patients in the voriconazole group discontinued prophylaxis due to adverse events (5 patients vs. 2 patients). Use of voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis for 15 days in 130 cycles in 48 AML/MDS patients would cost 175, 500 SR in comparison to the cost of the posaconazole for the same duration of 1, 350, 130 SR. So, use of voriconazole would save 1.13 million SR and is more cost effective when used as antifungal prophylaxis in AML/MDS patients in comparison to posaconazole although later is category 1 recommended antifungal prophylaxis in international guidelines Conclusion: Our study has shown that both posaconazole and voriconazole have comparable efficacy and safety in the prevention of IFD in AML and MDS receiving chemotherapy but voriconazole is more cost effective Disclosures: All Authors : No reported disclosures