Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 442

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Itraconazole versus fluconazole for prevention of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants

Open access
Marr, Kieren A., Crippa, Fulvio, Leisenring, Wendy, Hoyle, Maggie, Boeckh, Michael, Balajee, S. Arunmozhi, Nichols, W. Garrett, Musher, Benjamin, Corey, Lawrence·2004·Blood

Abstract

Prophylactic fluconazole prevents candidiasis; however, this drug has no activity against molds. We performed a randomized trial to determine whether prophylactic itraconazole prevents invasive mold infections (IMIs). A total of 304 patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants (SCT) were randomized to receive fluconazole (400 mg/d) or itraconazole (oral solution 2.5 mg/kg 3 times daily, or intravenous 200 mg daily) for 180 days after SC transplantation, or until 4 weeks after discontinuation of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) therapy. Proven or probable invasive fungal infections (IFI) were evaluated by intent-to-treat and “on-treatment” analyses. More patients in the itraconazole arm developed hepatotoxicities, and more patients were discontinued from itraconazole because of toxicities or gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance (36% versus 16%, P < .001). Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated no difference in the incidence of IFI during the intended study period (fluconazole 16% versus itraconazole 13%, P = .46); however, fewer patients in the itraconazole arm developed IFI on treatment (fluconazole 15% versus itraconazole 7%, P = .03). Itraconazole provided better protection against IMI (fluconazole 12% versus itraconazole 5%, P = .03), but similar protection against candidiasis (3% versus 2%, P = .69). There was no difference in overall or fungal-free survival. Itraconazole appears to prevent IMI in the subset of patients who tolerate the drug; however, toxicities and poor tolerability limit its success as prophylactic therapy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1182/blood-2003-08-2644

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 442

Metadata

Authors
Marr, K. A., Crippa, F., Leisenring, W., Hoyle, M., Boeckh, M., Balajee, S. A., Nichols, W. G., Musher, B., & Corey, L.
Venue
Blood
Published
2004-02-15
Volume
103
Issue
4
Pages
1527-1533
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2043706449
Cited by
442
References
3
FWCI
15.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Itraconazole versus fluconazole for prevention of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2003-08-2644
The paper
Marr, K. A., Crippa, F., Leisenring, W., Hoyle, M., Boeckh, M., Balajee, S. A., Nichols, W. G., Musher, B., & Corey, L. (2004). Itraconazole versus fluconazole for prevention of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2003-08-2644

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.