SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Antifungal prophylaxis among critically ill COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) affects a significant proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and is associated with increased mortality, underscoring the need for effective prophylaxis. While observational studies suggest a benefit from antifungal prophylaxis, its efficacy remains unconfirmed by randomized trials, and its impact on clinical outcomes is unclear.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42023462988) of nine ICU-based studies, comparing antifungal prophylaxis (primarily inhaled amphotericin B or systemic posaconazole) with standard care. The primary outcome was CAPA incidence; secondary outcomes included mortality, time to CAPA onset, and ICU length of stay. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, with publication bias evaluated via Egger’s test and funnel plot symmetry. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess heterogeneity and robustness.
resultsAmong 1,321 patients included, antifungal prophylaxis significantly reduced CAPA incidence (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14–0.33; p < 0.001) and CAPA risk (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12–0.40; p < 0.001). Inhaled amphotericin B demonstrated consistent benefit (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.52; p = 0.001), whereas systemic posaconazole showed variable results. No significant effects were observed on mortality (RR 1.05; p = 0.69), time to CAPA onset (MD −0.33 days; p = 0.73), or ICU stay duration (MD 1.59 days; p = 0.34). Efficacy was most evident in retrospective cohorts and among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Sensitivity analyses excluding high-bias studies confirmed the findings.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests a potential role for antifungal prophylaxis, especially topical amphotericin B, in reducing the risk of CAPA among critically ill COVID-19 patients, albeit survival or ICU stay was unaffected. The favorable profile of topical amphotericin B necessitates direct comparison with systemic azoles in future trials. Prospective, randomized studies are imperative to validate these findings for universal application, refine prophylactic regimens for broader populations, and assess long-term clinical and economic impacts.
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.