An open-label comparative pilot study of oral voriconazole and itraconazole for long-term treatment of paracoccidioidomycosis. Randomized trial with itraconazole, ketoconazole and sulfadiazine in paracoccidioidomycosis.
In previous studies, itraconazole was revealed to be an effective therapy and was considered to be the gold standard treatment for mild-to-moderate acute and chronic clinical forms of paracoccidioidomycosis. A pilot study was conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of voriconazole for the long-term treatment of acute or chronic paracoccidioidomycosis, with itraconazole as the control treatment.
                A randomized, open-label study was conducted at 3 Brazilian tertiary care hospitals. Patients were randomized (at a 2 : 1 ratio) to receive oral therapy with voriconazole or itraconazole for 6 months. Patients receiving >or=1 dose of study drug were evaluated for safety; patients with confirmed paracoccidioidomycosis who completed >or=6 months of therapy (treatment-evaluable patients) were evaluated for treatment efficacy. Satisfactory global response was assessed at the end of treatment.
                Fifty-three patients were evaluated for treatment safety (35 received voriconazole, and 18 received itraconazole). Both drugs were well tolerated. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the voriconazole group included abnormal vision, chromatopsia, rash, and headache; the most common treatment-related adverse events in the itraconazole group included bradycardia, diarrhea, and headache. Liver function test values were slightly higher in patients receiving voriconazole than in those receiving itraconazole; 2 patients in the voriconazole group were withdrawn from treatment because of increased liver function test values. In the intent-to-treat populations, the satisfactory response rate (i.e., complete or partial global response) was 88.6% among the voriconazole group and 94.4% among the itraconazole group. The response rate among treatment-evaluable patients was 100% for both treatment groups; no relapses were observed after 8 weeks of follow-up.
                This is, to our knowledge, the first study to demonstrate that voriconazole is as well tolerated and effective as itraconazole for the long-term treatment of paracoccidioidomycosis. Forty-two patients with active paracoccidioidomycosis were randomized to receive itraconazole (50-100 mg d(-1)), ketoconazole (200-400 mg d(-1)) or sulfadiazine (100-150 mg kg d(-1) up to 6 g d(-1)) for 4-6 months, followed by slow release sulfa until negativity of serological tests. All 14 patients in itraconazole and sulfadiazine groups and 13 in the ketoconazole group showed an adequate clinical response to the chemotherapy. One patient in the latter group showed treatment failure according to clinical and mycological criteria. The test of the hypothesis that the drugs reduced antibody levels up to ten months of treatment showed a p value equal to 0.0001 for itraconazole, 0.017 for ketoconazole and 0.0012 for sulfadiazine; this reduction was similar for the three groups. In this first randomized study for the treatment of paracoccidioidomycosis we could not show superiority of any one regimen over the others in the clinical and serological responses of patients with the moderately severe form of the disease.
The small number of participants and the short follow-up period impede definitive conclusions on comparative effects.