ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2014
Primary or secondary antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological maligancies: efficacy and damage.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The expenditures related to the use of antifungal drugs in patients with hematological cancers: a cost analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with hematological malignancies often develop febrile neutropenia (FN) as a complication of cancer chemotherapy. Primary or secondary antifungal prophylaxis is recommended for patients with hematological malignancies to reduce the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and potential harm of administration of primary and secondary antifungal prophylaxis to patients with hematological malignancies at one hospital.
methodsAll patients with hematological malignancies older than 14 years of age who had experienced at least one FN attack during chemotherapy while being treated at one hospital between November 2010 and November 2012 were retrospectively evaluated.
resultsA total of 282 FN episodes in 126 consecutive patients were examined during a 2-year study period. The mean patient age was 51.73±14.4 years (range: 17-82 years), and 66 patients were male. Primary prophylaxis with posaconazole was administered to 13 patients and systemic antifungal treatment under induction or consolidation chemotherapy to seven patients. Of 26 patients who received secondary antifungal prophylaxis with either oral voriconazole (n=17) or posaconazole (n=6) during 46 FN episodes, systemic antifungal therapy was administered in 16 of 38 episodes and three of eight episodes, respectively. Secondary antifungal prophylaxis with caspofungin was found effective in treating six FN episodes in three patients who had experienced at least two persistent candidemia attacks. The mortality rates associated with IFI were 9% in the first year, 2% in the second year, and 6% overall. The mortality rates associated with candidemia were 33% in the first year, 22% in the second year, and 27% overall.
conclusionPrimary antifungal prophylaxis should be administered to selected patients on the basis of consideration of efficacy, cost, and potential harm. Use of secondary prophylaxis may reduce systemic antifungal use and IFI frequency but may increase risk of colonization and infection with azole-resistant fungal strains.
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.