ArticleInternational journal of hematology2026
Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with graft-versus-host disease: A prospective randomized trial.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) increases the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). This randomized phase II selection trial evaluated protocol-defined prophylaxis success and safety of voriconazole (VRCZ) and itraconazole (ITCZ) prophylaxis in patients with GVHD.Allogeneic HCT recipients with grade II-IV acute GVHD or chronic GVHD requiring systemic corticosteroids were randomized to receive VRCZ or ITCZ for 60 days. Success was defined as survival without protocol-defined proven/probable IFI through day 60 and receipt of study drug for at least 48 days.Sixty-six patients (33 per group) were randomized. The success rate was 88% with VRCZ and 94% with ITCZ (difference, - 6.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, - 20.0 to 7.7); ITCZ was selected by the prespecified rule. No protocol-defined IFI occurred with VRCZ; one probable and one possible IFI occurred with ITCZ. Post hoc reclassification using 2008 consensus criteria yielded no IFI, whereas 2020 updated criteria yielded possible IFI in one VRCZ and two ITCZ patients. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 27% and 21%, respectively.In conclusion, both regimens achieved high protocol-defined prophylaxis success. The study was not powered to establish comparative antifungal efficacy; results mainly inform feasibility of azole prophylaxis in GVHD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42618875What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.