Infectious diseases (London, England) · 2017
Efficacy and safety of voriconazole in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rosanova Maria Teresa, Bes David, Serrano Aguilar Pedro, Sberna Norma, Lede Roberto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Voriconazole is a second-generation triazole. It has excellent bioavailability and broad antifungal spectrum; thus, it is an attractive option for patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Comparing efficacy and safety of voriconazole with other antifungals in prophylaxis or treatment of IFIs would be useful to draw conclusions regarding prevention and therapeutics of these infections.
AIM: To assess efficacy and safety of voriconazole compared with other options as prophylaxis or treatment of IFIs in haematology-oncology patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE database using the search term 'voriconazole' and completed with manual search.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing voriconazole with other antifungal agents or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION: Seven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
RESULTS: Five studies compared voriconazole to another comparator as prophylaxis of IFIs and two as treatment. Pooled results showed that voriconazole was more effective than the comparator (RR = 1.17; 95%CI = 1.01-1.34), but heterogeneity was significant (Q test 32.7; p = .00001). Sub-analysis according to prophylaxis showed RR = 1.17; 95%CI = 1.00-1.37; while as treatment, RR = 1.23; 95%CI = 0.68-2.22. Risk of adverse events was not different from that observed for the comparator (RR = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.66-1.72) though significant heterogeneity was detected (p < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole was as effective and safe as comparators, probably better as prophylaxis than as treatment, but limitations due to variability in the sample size of studies, differences in the age of patients, and heterogeneity between studies' outcome measures indicate the need for further research.
AIM: To assess efficacy and safety of voriconazole compared with other options as prophylaxis or treatment of IFIs in haematology-oncology patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE database using the search term 'voriconazole' and completed with manual search.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing voriconazole with other antifungal agents or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION: Seven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
RESULTS: Five studies compared voriconazole to another comparator as prophylaxis of IFIs and two as treatment. Pooled results showed that voriconazole was more effective than the comparator (RR = 1.17; 95%CI = 1.01-1.34), but heterogeneity was significant (Q test 32.7; p = .00001). Sub-analysis according to prophylaxis showed RR = 1.17; 95%CI = 1.00-1.37; while as treatment, RR = 1.23; 95%CI = 0.68-2.22. Risk of adverse events was not different from that observed for the comparator (RR = 1.06, 95%CI = 0.66-1.72) though significant heterogeneity was detected (p < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole was as effective and safe as comparators, probably better as prophylaxis than as treatment, but limitations due to variability in the sample size of studies, differences in the age of patients, and heterogeneity between studies' outcome measures indicate the need for further research.