Comparative evaluation of isavuconazonium sulfate, voriconazole, and posaconazole for the management of invasive fungal infections in an academic medical center

Edward T. Van MatreView ORCID ID profile,
Shelby L. Evans,
Scott W. Mueller,
Robert MacLaren,
Douglas N. Fish and
Tyree H. KiserEmail author View ORCID ID profile

Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials201918:13

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-019-0311-3

Received: 23 December 2018
Accepted: 1 March 2019
Published: 20 March 2019

Abstract

Background

Invasive fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Newer antifungals may provide similar efficacy with improved safety compared to older more established treatments. This study aimed to compare clinically relevant safety and efficacy outcomes in real world patients treated with isavuconazole, voriconazole, or posaconazole.

Methods

This single center retrospective matched cohort study evaluated adults between January 2015 and December 2017. The primary outcome was a composite safety analysis of antifungal related QTc prolongation, elevated liver function tests (> 5 times ULN), or any documented adverse drug event. Key secondary outcomes included: individual safety events, 30-day readmissions, magnitude of drug interactions with immunosuppressive therapy, and overall cost.

Results

A total of 100 patients were included: 34 patients in the voriconazole group and 33 patients within each of the isavuconazole and posaconazole groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 40% of the total cohort and was different between isavuconazole (24.2%), voriconazole (55.9%), and posaconazole (39.4%; p = 0.028). Change in QTc (p < 0.01) and magnitude of immunosuppression dose reduction (p = 0.029) were different between the three groups. No differences in mortality, length of stay, readmission, or infection recurrence were observed between groups (p > 0.05 for all). The overall medication cost, when including therapeutic drug monitoring, was not different between treatments (p = 0.36).

Conclusions

Patients treated with isavuconazole resulted in fewer composite safety outcomes, driven by decreased incidence of QTc prolongation, compared to patients treated with voriconazole or posaconazole. Overall drug cost was not significantly different between the treatment therapy options.