ArticleJournal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners2025
Evaluation of voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring in malignant hematology patients.
Article in Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionMalignant hematology (MH) patients are susceptible to invasive fungal infections due to prolonged neutropenia and immunosuppressive therapies, which may require voriconazole therapy. Although voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is common, evidence describing this practice is limited. The primary objective of this study was to describe the current practice of voriconazole TDM in MH patients at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM).MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted for MH inpatients initiated on voriconazole at PM between November 1st, 2019 and November 13th, 2020. Data regarding voriconazole doses, levels, dose changes, and adverse effects were collected. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with initial voriconazole levels within therapeutic range (1-5 mg/L).ResultsFifty-six patients were included in the study. The most common reason for starting voriconazole was possible invasive fungal infection (44 patients, 78.6%). Fifty-one patients (91.1%) received a loading dose of voriconazole, averaging 386.5 ± 78.5 mg. The average maintenance dose was 242.1 ± 45.7 mg. An average of 2.6 ± 2.9 levels were drawn per patient with an average level of 3.2 ± 2.4 mg/L. Forty-one patients (73.2%) had an initial voriconazole level within therapeutic range and 90 out of 145 total levels (62.1%) were within therapeutic range. There were 52 dose modifications made; 31 (60.8%) doses adjusted, 12 (23.5%) doses held, and 9 (17.6%) doses discontinued. For the 31 dose adjustments, 26 (83.9%) had a level redrawn and 17 (65.4%) of those levels were within therapeutic range. Twenty-three (41.1%) patients developed adverse effects, 8 (34.8%) of which were associated with supratherapeutic levels. Of these 23 patients, 19 (33.9%) experienced transaminitis, 3 (5.4%) experienced both transaminitis and neurotoxicity, and 1 (1.8%) experienced photopsia.ConclusionOverall, 41 (73.2%) patients achieved an initial voriconazole level within therapeutic range. Of these 41 patients, 30 (73.2%) remained within therapeutic range for the duration of their inpatient voriconazole therapy. These findings suggest that the current practice of voriconazole TDM at our institution is yielding largely positive results, but still has room for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.