Cargando…

Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV

BACKGROUND: Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) is a serious fungal infection that affects people living with HIV. The best way to treat the condition is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We assessed evidence in three areas of equipoise. 1. Induction. To compare efficacy and safety of initial therapy w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murray, Marylou, Hine, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7192368/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32343003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013594
_version_ 1783527994315243520
author Murray, Marylou
Hine, Paul
author_facet Murray, Marylou
Hine, Paul
author_sort Murray, Marylou
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) is a serious fungal infection that affects people living with HIV. The best way to treat the condition is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We assessed evidence in three areas of equipoise. 1. Induction. To compare efficacy and safety of initial therapy with liposomal amphotericin B versus initial therapy with alternative antifungals. 2. Maintenance. To compare efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with 12 months of oral antifungal treatment with shorter durations of maintenance therapy. 3. Antiretroviral therapy (ART). To compare the outcomes of early initiation versus delayed initiation of ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index‐Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three in the Web of Science); the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry, all up to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We evaluated studies assessing the use of liposomal amphotericin B and alternative antifungals for induction therapy; studies assessing the duration of antifungals for maintenance therapy; and studies assessing the timing of ART. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), single‐arm trials, prospective cohort studies, and single‐arm cohort studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias, extracted data, and assessed certainty of evidence. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess risk of bias in randomized studies, and ROBINS‐I tool to assess risk of bias in non‐randomized studies. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 individual studies. We judged eight studies to be at critical risk of bias, and removed these from the analysis. 1. Induction We found one RCT which compared liposomal amphotericin B to deoxycholate amphotericin B. Compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B may have higher clinical success rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; 1 study, 80 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B has lower rates of nephrotoxicity (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 study, 77 participants; high‐certainty evidence). We found very low‐certainty evidence to inform comparisons between amphotericin B formulations and azoles for induction therapy. 2. Maintenance We found no eligible study that compared less than 12 months of oral antifungal treatment to 12 months or greater for maintenance therapy. For both induction and maintenance, fluconazole performed poorly in comparison to other azoles. 3. ART We found one study, in which one out of seven participants in the 'early' arm and none of the three participants in the 'late' arm died. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal amphotericin B appears to be a better choice compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B for treating PDH in people with HIV; and fluconazole performed poorly compared to other azoles. Other treatment choices for induction, maintenance, and when to start ART have no evidence, or very low certainty evidence. PDH needs prospective comparative trials to help inform clinical decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7192368
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71923682021-04-28 Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV Murray, Marylou Hine, Paul Cochrane Database Syst Rev BACKGROUND: Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) is a serious fungal infection that affects people living with HIV. The best way to treat the condition is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We assessed evidence in three areas of equipoise. 1. Induction. To compare efficacy and safety of initial therapy with liposomal amphotericin B versus initial therapy with alternative antifungals. 2. Maintenance. To compare efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with 12 months of oral antifungal treatment with shorter durations of maintenance therapy. 3. Antiretroviral therapy (ART). To compare the outcomes of early initiation versus delayed initiation of ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index‐Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three in the Web of Science); the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry, all up to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We evaluated studies assessing the use of liposomal amphotericin B and alternative antifungals for induction therapy; studies assessing the duration of antifungals for maintenance therapy; and studies assessing the timing of ART. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), single‐arm trials, prospective cohort studies, and single‐arm cohort studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias, extracted data, and assessed certainty of evidence. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess risk of bias in randomized studies, and ROBINS‐I tool to assess risk of bias in non‐randomized studies. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 individual studies. We judged eight studies to be at critical risk of bias, and removed these from the analysis. 1. Induction We found one RCT which compared liposomal amphotericin B to deoxycholate amphotericin B. Compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B may have higher clinical success rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; 1 study, 80 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B has lower rates of nephrotoxicity (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 study, 77 participants; high‐certainty evidence). We found very low‐certainty evidence to inform comparisons between amphotericin B formulations and azoles for induction therapy. 2. Maintenance We found no eligible study that compared less than 12 months of oral antifungal treatment to 12 months or greater for maintenance therapy. For both induction and maintenance, fluconazole performed poorly in comparison to other azoles. 3. ART We found one study, in which one out of seven participants in the 'early' arm and none of the three participants in the 'late' arm died. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal amphotericin B appears to be a better choice compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B for treating PDH in people with HIV; and fluconazole performed poorly compared to other azoles. Other treatment choices for induction, maintenance, and when to start ART have no evidence, or very low certainty evidence. PDH needs prospective comparative trials to help inform clinical decisions. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2020-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7192368/ /pubmed/32343003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013594 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial Licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Murray, Marylou
Hine, Paul
Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV
title Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV
title_full Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV
title_fullStr Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV
title_full_unstemmed Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV
title_short Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV
title_sort treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with hiv
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7192368/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32343003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013594
work_keys_str_mv AT murraymarylou treatingprogressivedisseminatedhistoplasmosisinpeoplelivingwithhiv
AT hinepaul treatingprogressivedisseminatedhistoplasmosisinpeoplelivingwithhiv