Randomised Comparison of Safety Profile and Short Term Response of Itraconazole, Voriconazole and Amphotericin B in the Management of Chronic Invasive Fungal Rhinosinusitis

  • Santosh Debbarma
  • Rijuneeta GuptaEmail author
  • Sourabha K. Patro
  • Ashok K. Gupta
  • Promila Pandhi
  • Nusrat Shafiq
Original Article


Chronic invasive fungal rhino sinusitis (CIFS) is a well described clinical entity characterized by mucosal and sub mucosal infiltration of mycotic organisms and angio-centric extension into orbital and intracranial structures. Itraconazole, Voriconazole and Amphotericin B are commonly used for CIFS. In the present study we have evaluated short term clinical response of these drugs. Thirty diagnosed patients of CIFS who presented to us from January 2011 to December 2015 were divided into three groups randomly. Group A, B and C received Itraconazole, Voriconazole and Amphotericin respectively. Visual Analogue scale (VAS), Lund Mackay (LM) radiological scores and Kupferberg’s nasal endoscopic grades were seen and compared in all patients before treatment, after primary surgical debridement and biopsy and after post biopsy antifungal drug treatment. We assessed the serum drug levels using HPLC assay at 4 and 8 weeks of therapy and correlated them for efficacy and safety. All the groups had significant improvement after treatment compared to beginning of study. Inter group comparison showed that mean LM, NE and VAS scores were significantly better in Voriconazole group compared to Itraconazole and amphotericin B therapy. The reduction of these objective parameters with treatment was also significantly high in Voriconazole group compared to the other two groups. Voriconazole has shown to be the most effective treatment modality for chronic invasive fungal sinusitis compared to other commonly used drugs such as Itraconazole and Amphotericin B.


Chronic invasive fungal sinusitis CIFS, treatment of CIFS Short term response of antifungals Antifungals in CIFS 


Author Contributions

SD: Part of the MS thesis of the author. Took part in the management of the patients, collected data and analysed. RG: Conceptualised and mentored the study and finalised the manuscript. SKP: Did Statistical analysis and interpretation of the data, prepared the manuscript and finalized the current manuscript. AKG: Mentoring of the study along with active guidance to Dr SD in this study and the thesis to which this study is a part to. PP: Conceptualisation of the study and supervising the serum drug level analysis in the study. NS: Analysis of the serum samples, analysis and interpretation of the experimental results. She has guided the first author to carry out the pharmacological analyses as a part of the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interests among authors and no financial disclosures to be made.

Ethical Approval

The research involved human participants and was done as a part of the thesis of the first author. Hence approval was taken from institutional ethical review board for conducting the study.

Informed Consent

Detailed informed consent regarding the study, possible therapeutic options, outcomes and the possible adverse effects that might arise out of the drug treatment was taken from each participant. A separate consent was also taken from patients receiving amphotericin B therapy mentioning long term in hospital stay, continuous iv therapy and need of central venous catheterization and its complications.


  1. 1.
    Basan C III (1991) Fungal infections of the brain. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 1:578Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Shazo RD, Chapin K, Swain RE (1997) Fungal sinusitis. N Engl J Med 337(4):254–259. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denning DW (1998) Invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis 26(4):781–803Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mullins J, Harvey R, Seaton A (1976) Sources and incidence of airborne Aspergillus fumigatus (Fres). Clin Allergy 6(3):209–217Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nolard N, Detandt M, Beguin H (1988) Ecology of Aspergillus species in the human environment. In: Vanden Bossche H, Mackenzie DWR, Cauwenbergh G (eds) Aspergillus and aspergillosis. Springer, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gugnani HC (2003) Ecology and taxonomy of pathogenic aspergilli. Front Biosci J Virtual Libr 8:s346–s357Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pagella F, De Bernardi F, Dalla Gasperina D, Pusateri A, Matti E, Avato I et al (2016) Invasive fungal rhinosinusitis in adult patients: our experience in diagnosis and management. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg 44(4):512–520. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lestner JM, Roberts SA, Moore CB, Howard SJ, Denning DW, Hope WW (2009) Toxicodynamics of itraconazole: implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. Clin Infect Dis 49(6):928–930. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pascual A, Calandra T, Bolay S, Buclin T, Bille J, Marchetti O (2008) Voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with invasive mycoses improves efficacy and safety outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 46(2):201–211. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lund VJ, Mackay IS (1993) Staging in rhinosinusitus. Rhinology 31(4):183–184Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kupferberg SB, Bent JP 3rd, Kuhn FA (1997) Prognosis for allergic fungal sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117(1):35–41. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chakrabarti A, Denning DW, Ferguson BJ, Ponikau J, Buzina W, Kita H et al (2009) Fungal rhinosinusitis: a categorization and definitional schema addressing current controversies. Laryngoscope 119(9):1809–1818. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alrajhi AA, Enani M, Mahasin Z, Al-Omran K (2001) Chronic invasive aspergillosis of the paranasal sinuses in immunocompetent hosts from Saudi Arabia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 65(1):83–86Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan A, Ali F, Imran N, Khan N, Din S (2009) Invasive sino-orbital aspergillosis in immunocompetent host. J Med Sci 17(2):87–91Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH (1998) Invasive sinus aspergillosis in apparently immunocompetent hosts. J Infect 37(3):229–240Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panda NK, Sharma SC, Chakrabarti A, Mann SB (1998) Paranasal sinus mycoses in north India. Mycoses 41(7–8):281–286Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, Bennett JE, Greene RE, Oestmann JW et al (2002) Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 347(6):408–415. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwartz S, Ruhnke M, Ribaud P, Reed E, Troke P, Thiel E (2007) Poor efficacy of amphotericin B-based therapy in CNS aspergillosis. Mycoses 50(3):196–200. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park SH, Choi SM, Lee DG, Choi JH, Yoo JH, Min WS et al (2006) Intravenous itraconazole vs. amphotericin B deoxycholate for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent neutropenic fever. Korean J Intern Med 21(3):165–172Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cadena J, Levine DJ, Angel LF, Maxwell PR, Brady R, Sanchez JF et al (2009) Antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole or itraconazole in lung transplant recipients: hepatotoxicity and effectiveness. Am J Transplant 9(9):2085–2091. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith J, Safdar N, Knasinski V, Simmons W, Bhavnani SM, Ambrose PG et al (2006) Voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50(4):1570–1572. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kshirsagar N, Kirodian B (2002) Liposomal drug delivery system from laboratory to patients: our experience. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad Part B 68(4):333–348Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santosh Debbarma
    • 1
  • Rijuneeta Gupta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sourabha K. Patro
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ashok K. Gupta
    • 1
  • Promila Pandhi
    • 2
  • Nusrat Shafiq
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, PGIMERChandigarhIndia
  2. 2.Department of PharmacologyPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and ResearchChandigarhIndia
  3. 3.Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryAIIMSJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations