Posaconazole versus voriconazole as antifungal prophylaxis for invasive fungal diseases in patients with hematological malignancies.

IntroductionThe incidence of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) has risen in hematologic malignancy patients due to neutropenia. While posaconazole is recommended as the first-line antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients and voriconazole is an alternative, there is currently no direct comparison data available to assess their relative effectiveness.MethodWe retrospectively reviewed eligible patient charts from January 2017 to February 2019 to identify breakthrough IFD rates, drug adverse event frequency, and drug acquisition cost in AML/MDS patients.ResultsForty-eight patients received 130 chemo cycles, with 50 (38%) cycles prescribed posaconazole and 80 (62%) prescribed voriconazole as primary IFD prophylaxis. The incidence rates of IFD in the posaconazole group were 8% (4 out of 50), of which two were probable and two were possible infections, while 6.26% (5 out of 80) of patients in the voriconazole group developed IFD, with four possible infections and one probable infection ( = 0.73). A higher percentage of patients in the voriconazole group discontinued prophylaxis due to adverse events, with six patients compared to two patients in the posaconazole group ( = 0.15). The drug acquisition cost of posaconazole is 5.62 times more expensive than voriconazole.ConclusionThe use of voriconazole instead of posaconazole for 130 chemo cycles would save $166,584.6. Posaconazole and voriconazole have comparable efficacy and safety in preventing IFD in AML and MDS patients receiving chemotherapy. However, posaconazole is more costly than voriconazole.