Well done. Good article. But you missed one other "trick" for Ibrexafungerp. What if Ibrexafungerp is far less likely to cause fetal harm than azoles? Have you looked at the research, not just the drug insert? Because that is what we will have here in a few years or less as data comes in. Animal models showed that normal treatment dose did NOT cause fetal harm. A FIVE TIMES dose did. Now, think. At normal dosing, azoles reek havoc on early fetal development and viability.
Thanks for sharing. Certainly compelling, if true.
I spent some time in the clinical research, just enough to understand how IBX compares to Fluconazole and other antifungal drug classes in humans.
I also did some digging into the pregnancy side of this equation. I stopped short when I came across this FDA article on Fluconazole that states "chronic high-dose fluconazole may be teratogenic in humans when used in the first trimester" and "the available data in the medical literature do not suggest an association between low-dose oral fluconazole use in the first trimester of pregnancy and congenital anomalies". I believe low dose = 150 mg in this context (or at least that's what it says in the next sentence (though that's also potentially referring to a different set of studies)).
What data are you referring to in regards to azoles wreaking havoc on early fetal development and viability?
Well done. Good article. But you missed one other "trick" for Ibrexafungerp. What if Ibrexafungerp is far less likely to cause fetal harm than azoles? Have you looked at the research, not just the drug insert? Because that is what we will have here in a few years or less as data comes in. Animal models showed that normal treatment dose did NOT cause fetal harm. A FIVE TIMES dose did. Now, think. At normal dosing, azoles reek havoc on early fetal development and viability.
You are welcome.
Thanks for sharing. Certainly compelling, if true.
I spent some time in the clinical research, just enough to understand how IBX compares to Fluconazole and other antifungal drug classes in humans.
I also did some digging into the pregnancy side of this equation. I stopped short when I came across this FDA article on Fluconazole that states "chronic high-dose fluconazole may be teratogenic in humans when used in the first trimester" and "the available data in the medical literature do not suggest an association between low-dose oral fluconazole use in the first trimester of pregnancy and congenital anomalies". I believe low dose = 150 mg in this context (or at least that's what it says in the next sentence (though that's also potentially referring to a different set of studies)).
What data are you referring to in regards to azoles wreaking havoc on early fetal development and viability?
FDA Link:
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communicationuse-long-term-high-dose-diflucan-fluconazole-during-pregnancy-may-be#:~:text=defects%20in%20infants.-,A%20single%20dose%20of%20fluconazole%20150%20mg%20to%20treat%20vaginal,become%20pregnant%20while%20taking%20fluconazole
Rabbits with fetal malformations at 5x IBX dose link:
https://academic.oup.com/ajhp/article-abstract/78/21/1932/6353092?redirectedFrom=fulltext
IBX study indicating that it does not result in development harm to rabbit offspring at normal doses link:
https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/abstract/2019/05001/ibrexafungerp,_a_novel_oral_antifungal,.394.aspx