Completed

Comparison of Fluconazole vs Voriconazole to Treat Fungal Infections for Blood and Marrow Transplants (BMT CTN 0101)

0 criteria met from your profileSee at a glance how your profile meets each eligibility criteria.
What is being tested

Fluconazole

+ Voriconazole
Drug
Who is being recruted

Lymphoma

+ Infection
+ Leukemia
Over 2 Years
+38 Eligibility Criteria

See all eligibility criteria

How is the trial designed

Treatment Study

Phase 3
Interventional
Study Start: November 2003

See protocol details

Summary

Principal SponsorMedical College of Wisconsin
Last updated: January 4, 2023
Sourced from a government-validated database.Claim as a partner
Study start date: November 1, 2003Actual date on which the first participant was enrolled.

The study is designed as a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, prospective, comparative study of fluconazole versus voriconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in allogeneic transplant recipients. Recipients will be stratified by center and donor type (sibling vs. unrelated) and will be randomized to either the fluconazole or voriconazole arm in a 1:1 ratio. BACKGROUND: Allogeneic blood and marrow transplant patients are highly susceptible to invasive fungal infection prior to engraftment, due to neutropenia and mucosal injury. After engraftment, an impairment of cell mediated immunity from graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and the use of aggressive immunosuppressive therapies, such as corticosteroids, leave patients vulnerable to invasive fungal infections. Recipients of alternate donor transplants are especially susceptible due to slow reconstitution of cell mediated immunity. Fluconazole prophylaxis in prospective randomized trials of both autologous and allogeneic transplant recipients has been demonstrated to reduce invasive fungal infections due to yeasts prior to engraftment. A prolonged course of fluconazole given during the first 75 days (to cover the early post-engraftment period of risk) is highly effective in the prevention of early and later yeast infections. This has translated into a survival benefit. A recent analysis of long-term outcomes of these individuals demonstrated a continuing benefit beyond the course of prophylaxis with a further benefit in survival. In another study of various factors associated with survival after matched unrelated donor transplants, fluconazole prophylaxis was an independent predictor for overall survival in a multivariate analysis. Fluconazole prophylaxis has been found to be effective and safe with few substantive drug interactions and has been widely adopted by transplant clinicians. DESIGN NARRATIVE: This is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, prospective, comparative study of fluconazole versus voriconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in allogeneic hematopoietic transplant recipients and cord blood recipients in children under the age of 12. Prior to the start of the pre-transplant conditioning regimen, participants will give written informed consent and be screened for eligibility. Participants who meet all entry criteria will be assigned randomly to voriconazole or fluconazole within 72 hours of Day 0. Participants will begin the study drug on Day 0 (after completion of the conditioning regimen). Day 0 is defined as the day infusion of the stem cell product is completed. The study drug will be continued until Day 100 following transplant or until one or more criteria for early withdrawal are met. Continuation of the study drug beyond Day 100 is permitted for participants who meet specific criteria. The development of any fungal infection during prophylaxis will be classified according to the definitions listed in the protocol.

Official TitleA Randomized Double-blind Trial of Fluconazole Versus Voriconazole for the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections in Allogeneic Blood and Marrow Transplant Patients (BMT CTN #0101) 
Principal SponsorMedical College of Wisconsin
Last updated: January 4, 2023
Sourced from a government-validated database.Claim as a partner

Protocol

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
Design Details
600 patients to be enrolledTotal number of participants that the clinical trial aims to recruit.
Treatment Study
These studies test new ways to treat a disease, condition, or health issue. The goal is to see if a new drug, therapy, or approach works better or has fewer side effects than existing options.

How participants are assigned to different groups/arms
In this clinical study, participants are placed into groups randomly, like flipping a coin. This ensures that the study is fair and unbiased, making the results more reliable. By assigning participants by chance, researchers can better compare treatments without external influences.

Other Ways to Assign Participants
Non-randomized allocation: Participants are assigned based on specific factors, such as their medical condition or a doctor's decision.
None (Single-arm trial): If the study has only one group, all participants receive the same treatment, and no allocation is needed.

How treatments are given to participants
Participants are divided into different groups, each receiving a specific treatment at the same time. This helps researchers compare how well different treatments work against each other.

Other Ways to Assign Treatments
Single-group assignment: Everyone gets the same treatment.
Cross-over assignment: Participants switch between treatments during the study.
Factorial assignment: Participants receive different combinations of treatments.
Sequential assignment: Participants receive treatments one after another in a specific order, possibly based on individual responses.
Other assignment: Treatment assignment does not follow a standard or predefined design.

How the effectiveness of the treatment is controlled
In a non placebo-controlled study, no participants receive an inert substance (placebo) to compare outcomes. Instead, all participants receive either the experimental treatment or an alternative treatment (often the Standard of Care). This method allows researchers to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of a different active intervention, rather than a placebo.

Other Options
Placebo-Controlled: A placebo is used to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of an inert substance, isolating the true treatment effect.

How the interventions assigned to participants is kept confidential
Neither participants nor researchers know who is receiving which treatment. This is the most rigorous way to reduce bias, ensuring that expectations do not influence the results.

Other Ways to Mask Information
Open-label: Everyone knows which treatment is being given.
Single-blind: Participants do not know which treatment they are receiving, but researchers do.
Triple-blind: Participants, researchers, and outcome assessors do not know which treatment is given.
Quadruple-blind: Participants, researchers, outcome assessors, and care providers all do not know which treatment is given.

Eligibility

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria: person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Conditions
Criteria
Any sexBiological sex of participants that are eligible to enroll.
Over 2 YearsRange of ages for which participants are eligible to join.
Healthy volunteers not allowedIf individuals who are healthy and do not have the condition being studied can participate.
Conditions
Pathology
Lymphoma
Infection
Leukemia
Criteria
23 inclusion criteria required to participate
Must receive an allogeneic peripheral blood or marrow transplant from a family or unrelated donor, or for children under the age of 12, a cord blood transplant from either a sibling or other donor
Must have a 5 or 6 of 6 human leukocyte antigens (HLA)-matched donor. The match may be determined at serologic level for HLA-A and HLA-B loci. For sibling donors, matching may be determined at serologic level for HLA-DR; for unrelated donors, matching for HLA-DRB1 must be at the high-resolution molecular level
Must have one of the following underlying diseases
Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)

Show More Criteria

15 exclusion criteria prevent from participating
Invasive yeast infection within the 8 weeks prior to conditioning regimen initiation. Patients are eligible if colonized or have had superficial infection. Patients with a history of candidemia greater than 8 weeks prior to conditioning must have a negative blood culture within 14 days of conditioning (within 7 days is recommended), no clinical signs of candidemia, and may not still require antifungal therapy
Presumptive, proven, or probable aspergillus or other mold infection or deep mycoses (including hepatosplenic candidiasis) within 4 months prior to conditioning regimen initiation
Uncontrolled viral or bacterial infection at the time of study registration
Pregnant or breastfeeding. Women of child-bearing age must avoid becoming pregnant while receiving antifungal agents

Show More Criteria

Study Plan

Find out more about all the medication administered in this study, their detailed description and what they involve.
Treatment Groups
Study Objectives
2 intervention groups 

are designated in this study

This study does not include a placebo group 

Treatment Groups
Group I
Active Comparator
The dose of fluconazole is 400 mg by mouth or intravenous drip.
Group II
Experimental
The dose of oral voriconazole is 200 mg twice daily. When voriconazole must be given intravenously, it will be given at a dose of 200 mg every 12 hours for the duration of intravenous therapy.
Study Objectives
Primary Objectives

Secondary Objectives

Incidence of proven, probably, or presumptive IFI

Although there were 82 Galactomannan (GM) positives, 4 were excluded due to piperacillin/tazobactam administration, without other documentation of IFI, and were deemed false positives.

Study Centers

These are the hospitals, clinics, or research facilities where the trial is being conducted. You can find the location closest to you and its status.
This study has 33 locations
Suspended
University of Alabama at BirminghamBirmingham, United StatesSee the location
Suspended
UCSD Medical CenterLa Jolla, United States
Suspended
Stanford Hospital and ClinicsStanford, United States
Suspended
Children's National Medical CenterWashington, United States
Completed33 Study Centers