Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs

Echinocandins and triazoles were proven to be effective antifungal drugs against invasive fungal infections (IFI), which may cause significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between echinocandins and triazoles for t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, J.-F., Xue, Y., Zhu, X.-B., Fan, H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25502737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2287-4
_version_ 1782362196852867072
author Wang, J.-F.
Xue, Y.
Zhu, X.-B.
Fan, H.
author_facet Wang, J.-F.
Xue, Y.
Zhu, X.-B.
Fan, H.
author_sort Wang, J.-F.
collection PubMed
description Echinocandins and triazoles were proven to be effective antifungal drugs against invasive fungal infections (IFI), which may cause significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between echinocandins and triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2014. The quality of trials was assessed with the Jadad scoring system. The primary outcomes of interest were treatment success, microbiological success, breakthrough infection, drug-related adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and all-cause mortality. Ten RCTs, involving 2,837 patients, were included, as follows: caspofungin versus fluconazole (n = 1), caspofungin versus itraconazole (n = 1), anidulafungin versus fluconazole (n = 1), micafungin versus fluconazole (n = 4), micafungin versus voriconazole (n = 2), and micafungin versus itraconazole (n = 1). Echinocandins and triazoles showed similar effects in terms of favorable treatment success rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.02, 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.97–1.08], microbiological success rate (RR = 0.98, 95 % CI, 0.90–1.15), breakthrough infection (RR = 1.09; 95 % CI, 0.59–2.01), drug-related AEs (RR = 0.94; 95 % CI, 0.71–1.15), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.66–1.10) in the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. Additionally, echinocandins were more effective than triazoles for prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematologic malignancies or those who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; RR = 1.08; 95 % CI, 1.02–1.15). Echinocandins significantly decreased the AE-related withdrawals rate compared with triazoles (RR = 0.47; 95 % CI, 0.33–0.67). This meta-analysis revealed that echinocandins are as effective and safe as triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of patients with fungal infections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4365286
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43652862015-03-26 Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs Wang, J.-F. Xue, Y. Zhu, X.-B. Fan, H. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Review Echinocandins and triazoles were proven to be effective antifungal drugs against invasive fungal infections (IFI), which may cause significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between echinocandins and triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2014. The quality of trials was assessed with the Jadad scoring system. The primary outcomes of interest were treatment success, microbiological success, breakthrough infection, drug-related adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and all-cause mortality. Ten RCTs, involving 2,837 patients, were included, as follows: caspofungin versus fluconazole (n = 1), caspofungin versus itraconazole (n = 1), anidulafungin versus fluconazole (n = 1), micafungin versus fluconazole (n = 4), micafungin versus voriconazole (n = 2), and micafungin versus itraconazole (n = 1). Echinocandins and triazoles showed similar effects in terms of favorable treatment success rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.02, 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.97–1.08], microbiological success rate (RR = 0.98, 95 % CI, 0.90–1.15), breakthrough infection (RR = 1.09; 95 % CI, 0.59–2.01), drug-related AEs (RR = 0.94; 95 % CI, 0.71–1.15), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.66–1.10) in the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. Additionally, echinocandins were more effective than triazoles for prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematologic malignancies or those who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; RR = 1.08; 95 % CI, 1.02–1.15). Echinocandins significantly decreased the AE-related withdrawals rate compared with triazoles (RR = 0.47; 95 % CI, 0.33–0.67). This meta-analysis revealed that echinocandins are as effective and safe as triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of patients with fungal infections. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014-12-14 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4365286/ /pubmed/25502737 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2287-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Review
Wang, J.-F.
Xue, Y.
Zhu, X.-B.
Fan, H.
Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs
title Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs
title_full Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs
title_short Efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of RCTs
title_sort efficacy and safety of echinocandins versus triazoles for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections: a meta-analysis of rcts
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365286/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25502737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2287-4
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjf efficacyandsafetyofechinocandinsversustriazolesfortheprophylaxisandtreatmentoffungalinfectionsametaanalysisofrcts
AT xuey efficacyandsafetyofechinocandinsversustriazolesfortheprophylaxisandtreatmentoffungalinfectionsametaanalysisofrcts
AT zhuxb efficacyandsafetyofechinocandinsversustriazolesfortheprophylaxisandtreatmentoffungalinfectionsametaanalysisofrcts
AT fanh efficacyandsafetyofechinocandinsversustriazolesfortheprophylaxisandtreatmentoffungalinfectionsametaanalysisofrcts