Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24563222›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Voriconazole versus amphotericin B or fluconazole in cancer patients with neutropenia.

Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche, Christina S Dalbøge, Helle Krogh Johansen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical Guidelines: Asking the Right Questions to Guide Fungal Infection Management.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karsten Juhl JørgensenThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 7811, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2100.
Peter C Gøtzsche
Christina S Dalbøge
Helle Krogh Johansen
Cochrane · DKRigshospitalet · 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 is 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

methodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 1 2014), MEDLINE (to January 2014). Letters, abstracts and unpublished trials were accepted. Contact was made with trial authors and industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical 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 independently by two review authors. MAIN

resultsThree trials were included. One trial compared voriconazole to liposomal amphotericin B as empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin (suspected fungal infection) in neutropenic cancer patients (849 patients, 58 deaths). The second trial compared voriconazole to amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of confirmed and presumed invasive Aspergillus infections (391 patients, 98 deaths). The third trial compared fluconazole to voriconazole for prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation (600 patients, number of deaths not stated). In the first trial, voriconazole was significantly inferior to liposomal amphotericin B according to the trial 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 the analysis by the trial authors were included. In the second trial, the deoxycholate preparation of amphotericin B was used without any indication of the use of premedication to counter side effects and replacement of electrolytes or use of salt water. This choice of comparator resulted in a marked difference in the duration of treatment on the trial drugs (77 days with voriconazole versus 10 days with amphotericin B) and precluded meaningful comparisons of the benefits and harms of the two drugs. The third trial failed to find a difference in fungal free survival or invasive fungal infections at 180 days when voriconazole was compared to fluconazole. AUTHORS'

conclusionsLiposomal amphotericin B is significantly more effective than voriconazole for empirical therapy of fungal infections in 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. For prophylactic fungal treatment in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation, there was no difference between voriconazole and fluconazole regarding fungal free survival or invasive fungal infections.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAntifungal AgentsAspergillosisFluconazoleHumansLiposomesMycosesNeoplasmsNeutropeniaOpportunistic InfectionsPyrimidinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTriazolesVoriconazoleAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsFluconazoleLiposomesPyrimidinesTriazolesVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID24563222
PMCPMC6457750
OpenAlexW1975044198

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.