Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16437492›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Voriconazole versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.

K J Jørgensen, P C Gøtzsche, H K Johansen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antifungal therapy for newborn infants with invasive fungal infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Antifungal management in cancer patients.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2007
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K J JørgensenNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark, DK-2100. kj@cochrane.dk
P C Gøtzsche
H K Johansen
Rigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpportunistic fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in neutropenic cancer patients and antifungal therapy are used both empirically and therapeutically in these patients.

objectivesTo compare the benefits and harms of voriconazole with those of amphotericin B and fluconazole when used for prevention or treatment of invasive fungal infections in cancer patients with neutropenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (May 2005). Letters, abstracts and unpublished trials were accepted. Contact to authors and industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing voriconazole with amphotericin B or fluconazole. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection, colonisation, use of additional (escape) antifungal therapy and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were extracted by two authors independently. MAIN

resultsTwo trials were included. One trial compared voriconazole to liposomal amphotericin B as empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin (suspected fungal infections) in neutropenic cancer patients (849 patients, 58 deaths). The other trial compared voriconazole to amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of confirmed and presumed invasive Aspergillus infections (391 patients, 98 deaths). In the first trial, voriconazole was significantly inferior to liposomal amphotericin B according to the authors' prespecified criteria. More patients died in the voriconazole group and a claimed significant reduction in the number of breakthrough fungal infections disappeared when patients arbitrarily excluded from analysis by the authors were included. In the second trial, the deoxycholate preparation of amphotericin B was used without any indication of the use of premedication and substitution with electrolytes and salt water to avoid handicapping this drug. This choice of comparator resulted in a marked difference in the duration of treatment on trial drugs (77 days with voriconazole versus 10 days with amphotericin B), and precludes meaningful comparisons of the benefits and harms of the two drugs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsLiposomal amphotericin B is significantly more effective than voriconazole for empirical therapy of neutropenic cancer patients and should be preferred. For treatment of aspergillosis, there are no trials that have compared voriconazole with amphotericin B given under optimal conditions.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAntifungal AgentsAspergillosisFluconazoleHumansLiposomesMycosesNeoplasmsNeutropeniaOpportunistic InfectionsPyrimidinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTriazolesVoriconazoleAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsFluconazoleLiposomesPyrimidinesTriazolesVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID16437492
OpenAlexW2104845552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.