Table 2.
Estimates from pairwise meta-analysis of the relative efficacy
| Comparison, No. of studies | All-cause mortality | Fungal infection-related mortality | Treatment response | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) | I2 | N | RR (95% CI) | I2 | N | RR (95% CI) | I2 | N | |
| Itraconazole vs AmB, 2 RCTs | 0.88 (0.57, 1.36) | 0 | 522 | 0.61 (0.14, 2.56) | 0 | 522 | 1.33 (1.10, 1.61) | 0 | 522 |
| L-AmBa vs Caspofungin, 6 RCTs | 1.43 (0.98, 2.08) | 0 | 1274 | / | / | / | 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) | 0 | 1362 |
| L-AmBa vs NAT, 1 RCT | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.91 (0.67, 1.25) | / | 31 |
| Caspofungin vs NAT, 1 RCT | / | / | / | / | / | / | 1.08 (0.86, 1.34) | / | 33 |
| AmB vs Fluconazole, 1 RCT | 0.67 (0.12, 3.84) | / | 112 | / | / | / | 0.88 (0.69, 1.12) | / | 112 |
| AmB vs NAT, 1 RCT | 0.74 (0.36, 1.51) | / | 132 | 0.10 (0.01, 1.91) | / | 132 | 1.30 (0.98, 1.72) | / | 132 |
| Micafungin vs Voriconazole, 1 RCT | 2.76 (0.12, 66.07) | / | 94 | / | / | / | 1.05 (0.77, 1.42) | / | 94 |
| NAT vs Fluconazole, 1 RCT | 0.35 (0.01, 8.30) | / | 110 | / | / | / | 0.89 (0.65, 1.22) | / | 110 |
| Voriconazole vs L-AmBa, 1 RCT | 1.34 (0.81, 2.22) | / | 837 | 0.51 (0.05, 5.59) | / | 837 | 0.85 (0.69, 1.06) | / | 837 |
| Micafungin vs Itraconazole, 1 RCT | 0.77 (0.28, 2.11) | / | 148 | / | / | / | 1.12 (0.87, 1.46) | / | 148 |
| L-AmBa vs AmB, 3 RCTs | 0.73 (0.46, 1.17) | 0 | 730 | 0.36 (0.12, 1.13) | / | 687 | 1.09 (0.91, 1.31) | 0.36 | 948 |
| L-AmBa vs L-AmBb, 2 RCTs | 0.96 (0.22, 4.24) | / | 45 | / | / | / | 1.03 (0.82, 1.29) | 0.14 | 280 |
| AmB vs L-AmBb, 2 RCTs | 0.73 (0.14, 3.95) | / | 42 | / | / | / | 0.85 (0.68, 1.06) | 0 | 259 |
| L-AmBa vs ABLC, 1 RCT | 0.42 (0.15, 1.15) | / | 163 | 0.31 (0.03, 2.88) | / | 163 | 1.20 (0.80, 1.80) | / | 163 |
RR Risk ratio, CI Confidence interval, AmB Conventional amphotericin B, RCT Randomized controlled trial, L-AmB Liposomal amphotericin B, NAT No antifungal treatment, ABLC Amphotericin B lipid complex
a3 mg/kg/day; b1 mg/kg/day