SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006
Voriconazole versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine versus selective antifungal administration for control of fungal infections in patients with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Antifungal therapy for newborn infants with invasive fungal infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the tolerability and hepatotoxicity of antifungals in empirical and definitive therapy for invasive fungal infection.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2010Pooled it
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.European journal of haematology · 2007Trial
- Nasal-alar invasive cutaneous aspergillosis in a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Role of therapeutic drug monitoring of voriconazole in the treatment of invasive fungal infections.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2009Article
- Review
- Multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of invasive fungal infections in adult patients. Prophylaxis, empirical, preemptive or targeted therapy, which is the best in the different hosts?Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2008Article
- Antifungal management in cancer patients.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2007Review
- The role of echinocandins, extended-spectrum azoles, and polyenes to treat opportunistic moulds and Candida.Current infectious disease reports · 2006Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.