4.5 Article

Initial voriconazole trough blood levels and clinical outcomes of invasive aspergillosis in patients with hematologic malignancies

期刊

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 324-330

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/13693786.2012.694082

关键词

voriconazole; invasive aspergillosis; initial trough blood level; clinical response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are limited data on the relationship between voriconazole levels and clinical outcomes relative to invasive aspergillosis (IA). We therefore analyzed the association between initial voriconazole trough blood levels and clinical responses of IA in patients with hematologic malignancies. All adult patients treated with voriconazole in a tertiary care hospital in Seoul, South Korea, between August 2009 and April 2011 were identified from pharmacy records. Initial voriconazole trough levels were routinely measured 1 week after therapy and patient responses were classified as success (complete or partial response) or failure (stable response, progression of disease, or death) at 2 weeks post-therapy. Fifty-two patients, involving 2 (4%) proven, 29 (56%) probable, and 21 (40%) possible IA infections, were included. Of these, 11 (21%) had initial voriconazole levels of <= 2 mg/l and the remaining 41 (79%) had > 2 mg/l. There were slightly fewer successful responses (45%, 5/11) in the patients with initial voriconazole levels <= 2 mg/l than in those with voriconazole levels > 2 mg/l (51%, 21/41), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.73). Neutropenia (OR 0.1, P = 0.008) and immunosuppression (OR 0.1, P = 0.004) were independently associated with 2-week successful response after voriconazole therapy. In conclusion, initial voriconazole trough levels may not significantly affect clinical outcomes of IA at 2 weeks after voriconazole therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies. Further studies of prospective design are needed to establish the optimal procedure for voriconazole drug monitoring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据