ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
Impact of Changes of the 2020 Consensus Definitions of Invasive Aspergillosis on Clinical Trial Design: Unintended Consequences for Prevention Trials?
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mannan immunoassay for diagnosis of invasive mucormycosis: assay development, preclinical testing and evaluation in an animal model.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Plasma Microbial Cell-free DNA Metagenomic Sequencing for Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Diseases Among High-risk Outpatient and Inpatient Immunocompromised Hosts.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- An Update on Invasive Fungal Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsensus definitions for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) were updated in 2020 to increase the certainty of IFD for inclusion in clinical trials, for instance by increasing biomarker cutoff limits to define positivity. To date, there is a paucity of data as to the impact of the revised definitions on clinical trials.
methodsIn this study, we sought to determine the impact of the new definitions on classifying invasive aspergillosis (IA), the most common invasive mold disease in immunocompromised patients. We reclassified 226 proven and probable IA cases plus 139 possible IFD cases in the Aspergillus Technology Consortium (AsTeC) and in an antifungal prophylaxis trial (BMT CTN 0101) using the new criteria.
resultsFewer cases met the more stringent diagnostic 2020 criteria after applying the reclassification criteria to define probable IA. Of 188 evaluable probable cases, 41 (22%) were reclassified to 40 possible IA and 1 probable IFD. Reclassification to possible IFD occurred in 22% of hematologic malignancy (HM) patients, 29% of hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) patients, and in no lung transplant (LT) patients. Date of diagnosis was established a median (range) of 3 (1-105) days later in 15% of probable IA cases using the new criteria. Applying the new definitions to the BMT CTN 0101 trial, the power to detect the same odds ratio decreased substantially.
conclusionsThe updated IA consensus definitions may impact future trial designs, especially for antifungal prophylaxis studies.
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.