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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |