help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, R.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, R.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, N.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 174. pp. 102, (2006)
© 2006 American Thoracic Society


Correspondence

Amphotericin B Is Still the Drug of Choice for Invasive Aspergillosis

To the Editor:

We read with interest the recent article by Drs. Segal and Walsh, wherein the authors review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of invasive aspergillosis (1). The authors recommend voriconazole as the drug of choice in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. However, we do not agree with the recommendations of the authors that voriconazole be considered the new standard of care for invasive aspergillosis. We believe that it is too early to accept voriconazole as the drug of choice for invasive aspergillosis. Amphotericin B is a highly effective antifungal agent, and is used as the gold standard against which newer agents are compared in trials of antifungal drugs. The conclusion that amphotericin B is inferior to voriconazole is based on two published trials (2, 3); however, both the trials are limited by their study design (4).

The first trial was flawed by its design in using the deoxycholate preparation without requirements for premedication (used for minimizing infusion-related toxicity), or substitution with fluid and electrolytes (to reduce nephrotoxicity) (2). Moreover, voriconazole was given on an average of 77 d, but amphotericin B was given only for 10 d, precluding any meaningful comparison of the two study drugs. The second trial was a noninferiority trial that compared voriconazole with liposomal amphotericin B as an empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin in neutropenic cancer patients (3). Despite misleading definitions, voriconazole was significantly inferior to amphotericin B (4, 5). In fact, there was less survival in the voriconazole group, and a claimed significant reduction in the so-called breakthrough fungal infections (defined as those confirmed more than 24 h postenrollment) in favor of voriconazole disappeared when baseline infections that persisted despite treatment (infections arbitrarily excluded from analysis) were included (4).

Thus, the available evidence does not support a recommendation to use voriconazole instead of amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis. To the contrary, amphotericin B is significantly more effective than voriconazole and is currently the drug of choice (6).

Ritesh Agarwal and Navneet Singh

Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh, India

FOOTNOTES

Conflict of Interest Statement: Neither of the authors has a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. Segal BH, Walsh TJ. Current approaches to diagnosis and treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;173:707–717.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, Bennett JE, Greene RE, Oestmann JW, Kern WV, Marr KA, Ribaud P, Lortholary O, et al. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 2002;347:408–415.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Walsh TJ, Pappas P, Winston DJ, Lazarus HM, Petersen F, Raffalli J, Yanovich S, Stiff P, Greenberg R, Donowitz G, et al. Voriconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. N Engl J Med 2002;346:225–234.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Jorgensen KJ, Johansen HK, Gotzsche PC. Flaws in design, analysis and interpretation of Pfizer's antifungal trials of voriconazole and uncritical subsequent quotations. Trials 2006;7:3.[Medline]
  5. Powers JH, Dixon CA, Goldberger MJ. Voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. N Engl J Med 2002;346:289–290.[Free Full Text]
  6. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Johansen HK. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;1:CD004707.




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, R.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, R.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, N.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 2006 American Thoracic Society