Two randomized, controlled studies were conducted using Noxafil as prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among patients at high risk due to severely compromised immune systems.  
  
The first study (Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 1) was a randomized, double-blind trial that compared Noxafil oral suspension (200 mg three times a day) with fluconazole capsules (400 mg once daily) as prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with Graft versus Host Disease (GVHD). Efficacy of prophylaxis was evaluated using a composite endpoint of proven/probable IFIs, death, or treatment with systemic antifungal therapy (patients may have met more than one of these criteria). This assessed all patients while on study therapy plus 7 days and at 16 weeks post-randomization. The mean duration of therapy was comparable between the 2 treatment groups (80 days, Noxafil oral suspension; 77 days, fluconazole). Table 32 contains the results from Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 1.  


The second study (Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 2) was a randomized, open-label study that compared Noxafil oral suspension (200 mg 3 times a day) with fluconazole suspension (400 mg once daily) or itraconazole oral solution (200 mg twice a day) as prophylaxis against IFIs in neutropenic patients who were receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for AML or MDS. As in Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 1, efficacy of prophylaxis was evaluated using a composite endpoint of proven/probable IFIs, death, or treatment with systemic antifungal therapy (Patients might have met more than one of these criteria). This study assessed patients while on treatment plus 7 days and 100 days postrandomization. The mean duration of therapy was comparable between the 2 treatment groups (29 days, posaconazole; 25 days, fluconazole or itraconazole). Table 33 contains the results from Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 2.  


In summary, 2 clinical studies of prophylaxis were conducted with the Noxafil oral suspension. As seen in the accompanying tables (Tables 32 and 33), clinical failure represented a composite endpoint of breakthrough IFI, mortality and use of systemic antifungal therapy. In Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 1 (Table 32), the clinical failure rate of posaconazole (33%) was similar to fluconazole (37%), (95% CI for the difference posaconazole–comparator -11.5% to 3.7%) while in Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 2 (Table 33) clinical failure was lower for patients treated with posaconazole (27%) when compared to patients treated with fluconazole or itraconazole (42%), (95% CI for the difference posaconazole–comparator -22.9% to -7.8%).  
  
All-cause mortality was similar at 16 weeks for both treatment arms in Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 1 [POS 58/301 (19%) vs. FLU 59/299 (20%)]; all-cause mortality was lower at 100 days for posaconazole-treated patients in Noxafil Oral Suspension Study 2 [POS 44/304 (14%) vs. FLU/ITZ 64/298 (21%)]. Both studies demonstrated fewer breakthrough infections caused by Aspergillus species in patients receiving posaconazole prophylaxis when compared to patients receiving fluconazole or itraconazole.