Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26968880›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2016

Trough concentration of voriconazole and its relationship with efficacy and safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haiying Jin, Tiansheng Wang, Bonnie A Falcione, Keith M Olsen, Ken Chen, Huilin Tang, John Hui, Suodi Zhai

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Haiying JinDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China Department of Pharmacy, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Tiansheng WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Beijing, China tiansheng_wang@yahoo.com.
Bonnie A FalcioneDepartment of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Keith M OlsenDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Ken ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Huilin TangDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
John HuiDepartment of Pharmacy, Stanford University Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Suodi ZhaiDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe optimum trough concentration of voriconazole for clinical response and safety is controversial. The objective of this review was to determine the optimum trough concentration of voriconazole and evaluate its relationship with efficacy and safety.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library and three Chinese literature databases were searched. Observational studies that compared clinical outcomes below and above the trough concentration cut-off value were included. We set the trough concentration cut-off value for efficacy as 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 mg/L and for safety as 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 mg/L. The efficacy outcomes were invasive fungal infection-related mortality, all-cause mortality, rate of successful treatment and rate of prophylaxis failure. The safety outcomes included incidents of hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity and visual disorders.

resultsA total of 21 studies involving 1158 patients were included. Compared with voriconazole trough concentrations of >0.5 mg/L, levels of <0.5 mg/L significantly decreased the rate of treatment success (risk ratio = 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.74). The incidence of hepatotoxicity was significantly increased with trough concentrations >3.0, >4.0, >5.5 and >6.0 mg/L. The incidence of neurotoxicity was significantly increased with trough concentrations >4.0 and >5.5 mg/L.

conclusionsA voriconazole level of 0.5 mg/L should be considered the lower threshold associated with efficacy. A trough concentration >3.0 mg/L is associated with increased hepatotoxicity, particularly for the Asian population, and >4.0 mg/L is associated with increased neurotoxicity.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsDrug MonitoringHumansInvasive Fungal InfectionsLiverMycosesNervous SystemTreatment OutcomeVoriconazoleAntifungal AgentsVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID26968880
PMCPMC4896404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.