SynthesisMedical mycology2025
Efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for invasive fungal infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medical mycology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Strategies of Antifungal Resistance in Filamentous Fungi.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Isavuconazole in Pediatric Invasive Fungal Infections: Outcomes and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in a Chinese Multicenter Case Series.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIsavuconazole (ISA) is a treatment option for invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and is known for a favorable safety profile compared with other antifungal agents. However, comprehensive evidence regarding its efficacy and safety remains limited.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ISA compared with other antifungal agents through a systematic review and meta-analysis restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to provide more reliable estimates of its clinical effects.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs comparing ISA with other antifungal agents. The primary outcomes were clinical response and mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events, including serious, drug-related, and organ-specific toxicities. A subgroup analysis was conducted focusing on filamentous fungal infections, comparing ISA and voriconazole.
resultsThree RCTs met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences were observed between ISA and comparator agents in terms of clinical response, mortality, or total and organ-specific adverse events. A trend toward fewer adverse events was noted in the ISA group. In the subgroup analysis, ISA and voriconazole showed similar efficacy and overall safety; however, the incidence of both drug-related adverse events and hepatobiliary disorders was significantly lower in the ISA group.
conclusionsISA demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of other antifungal agents, with a favorable safety profile in patients with IFIs, including filamentous fungal infections. This meta-analysis of RCTs provides high-quality evidence to support antifungal drug selection in clinical practice.
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.