Limits...
Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

Bow EJ, Vanness DJ, Slavin M, Cordonnier C, Cornely OA, Marks DI, Pagliuca A, Solano C, Cragin L, Shaul AJ, Sorensen S, Chambers R, Kantecki M, Weinstein D, Schlamm H - BMC Infect. Dis. (2015)

Bottom Line: Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI.All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: CancerCare Manitoba, 675 McDermot Ave, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. EJBow@cancercare.mb.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC.

Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.

Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow chart of the systematic literature review process and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4374298&req=5

Fig1: Flow chart of the systematic literature review process and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Mentions: We conducted a systematic literature review in 2014 to identify all relevant RCTs evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients post-transplant. The search process and full inclusion/exclusion criteria are shown in FigureĀ 1. The risk of bias across studies could not be assessed, since multiple studies assessing the same treatment effect were not available.Figure 1


Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

Bow EJ, Vanness DJ, Slavin M, Cordonnier C, Cornely OA, Marks DI, Pagliuca A, Solano C, Cragin L, Shaul AJ, Sorensen S, Chambers R, Kantecki M, Weinstein D, Schlamm H - BMC Infect. Dis. (2015)

Flow chart of the systematic literature review process and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4374298&req=5

Fig1: Flow chart of the systematic literature review process and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Mentions: We conducted a systematic literature review in 2014 to identify all relevant RCTs evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients post-transplant. The search process and full inclusion/exclusion criteria are shown in FigureĀ 1. The risk of bias across studies could not be assessed, since multiple studies assessing the same treatment effect were not available.Figure 1

Bottom Line: Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI.All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: CancerCare Manitoba, 675 McDermot Ave, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. EJBow@cancercare.mb.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC.

Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.

Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus