Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2020 Oct 8;3(10):e2017652. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17652

Comparison of Antifungal Prophylaxis Drugs in Patients With Hematological Disease or Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Jing Wang 1,2, Min Zhou 1, Jing-Yan Xu 1, Rong-Fu Zhou 1, Bing Chen 1,✉, Yuan Wan 2,✉
PMCID: PMC7545296  PMID: 33030550

Key Points

Question

What primary antifungal prophylaxis drugs for patients with hematological disease or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation perform best in randomized clinical trials?

Findings

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of 69 randomized clinical trials that performed comparisons of individual antifungal agents in 14 789 patients, voriconazole was recommended for patients undergoing HSCT and posaconazole was recommended for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Meaning

These findings may help clinicians to make antifungal prophylaxis treatment decisions.

This systematic review and network meta-analsysis compares antifungal prophylaxis drugs for patients with hematological disease or who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

Abstract

Importance

Several antifungal drugs are available for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

Objective

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and adverse effects of antifungal agents using an integrated comparison.

Data Sources

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials were searched to collect all relevant evidence published in randomized clinical trials that assessed antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease. Sources were search from inception up to October 2019.

Study Selection

Studies that compared any antifungal agent with a placebo, no antifungal agent, or another antifungal agent among patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT were included. Of 39 709 studies identified, 69 met the criteria for inclusion.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The outcome from each study was estimated using the relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. The Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model was used. The reliability and validity of the networks were estimated by addressing inconsistencies in the evidence from comparative studies of different treatments. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to February 2020. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were invasive fungal infections (IFIs) and mortality. The secondary outcomes were fungal infections, proven IFIs, invasive candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, fungi-related death, and withdrawal owing to adverse effects of the drug.

Results

We identified 69 randomized clinical trials that reported comparisons of 12 treatments with at total of 14 789 patients. Posaconazole was the treatment associated with the best probability of success against IFIs (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 86.7%; mean rank, 2.5). Posaconazole treatment was associated with a significant reduction in IFIs (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) and invasive aspergillosis (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85) compared with placebo. Voriconazole was associated with a significant reduction in invasive candidiasis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.26) compared with placebo. However, posaconazole was associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal because of the adverse effects of the drug (surface under the cumulative ranking curve, 17.5%; mean rank, 9.2). In subgroup analyses considering efficacy and tolerance, voriconazole might be the best choice for patients undergoing HSCT, especially allogenic HSCT; however, posaconazole was ranked as the best choice for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that voriconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients undergoing HSCT, and posaconazole may be the best prophylaxis option for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Introduction

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) have emerged as important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Because of the difficulty in obtaining a timely diagnosis as well as the high morbidity and mortality associated with IFIs, antifungal prophylaxis remains a high priority in these populations at high risk of IFIs.1 Over the past decade, clinical benefits from antifungal prophylaxis have been demonstrated.2,3,4 However, there is no clear consensus on antifungal prophylaxis treatment between different centers and groups, particularly in the choice of the antifungal prophylaxis agents. Conventional pairwise meta-analyses based on a direct comparison are relatively limited and difficult to use to investigate antifungal prophylaxis agents. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis5 to gain a better understanding of the outcomes associated with and tolerance to current antifungal agents.

Methods

Protocol and Registration

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) reporting guideline.6 This protocol has been registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42020161748.

Literature Search

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials were searched to collect all published evidence from randomized clinical trials from inception to October 2019 that assessed primary antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT. The search strategy is detailed in the eAppendix in the Supplement. The reference lists from all included studies and reviews were screened to identify potentially relevant evidence.

Study Inclusion Criteria

All available randomized clinical trials that aimed to compare any antifungal agent with a placebo, no antifungal agent, or another antifungal agent for prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT were included. In this analysis, we assumed that there was no difference between placebo and no antifungal agent.

Data Extraction

From each relevant study, the following data were extracted: authors’ names, year of publication, number of patients, age, use and dosage of drugs, categories of disease. Extracted outcomes included (1) incidence of fungal infections (superficial and IFI); (2) incidence of IFIs (possible, probable, and proven IFIs); (3) incidence of proven IFIs (positive histological results on biopsy from deep tissue); (4) incidence of invasive candidiasis; (5) incidence of invasive aspergillosis; (6) fungi-related death; and (7) withdrawal because of adverse effects of the drug.

Quality Assessment

Two of us (M.Z. and J.-Y.X.) independently participated in the quality assessment, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (B.C.) until consensus was obtained. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the revised tool for risk of bias in randomized trials.7

Statistical Analysis

We compared different agents through network meta-analyses performed under a frequentist framework using a random-effects model. The analysis was performed using the network and mvmeta packages in Stata statistical software version 14.0 (StateCorp).8,9 We estimated the outcome from each study using the relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. A 95% CI of an RR not covering 1 indicated a statistically significant association. Forest plots and league tables were used to visually present the results of the network meta-analysis. For each outcome, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to separately rank each agent.10 The larger the SUCRA value, the better the rank. The reliability and validity of the networks were estimated by addressing the inconsistencies and heterogeneity in the evidence from comparative studies of different treatments.11 The overall and loop inconsistencies were evaluated.8,12 Heterogeneity was estimated by the restricted maximum likelihood method. A τ2 value less than 0.1 indicated a very low level of heterogeneity, and a τ2 value from 0.1 to 0.5 indicated a reasonable level; a τ2 value greater than 0.5 was considered to indicate high heterogeneity.13 Additional subgroup analyses were performed restricted to data from different patient populations. Small-study effects were described with a funnel plot. Each funnel plot was tested using the Begg test to assess the small-study effects. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to February 2020.

Results

Characteristics of the Studies

The flowchart of study selection for this network meta-analysis is shown in eFigure 1 in the Supplement. In total, 69 trials with 14 789 patients were included,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82 including 12 groups: placebo, polyene, conventional amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, miconazole, ketoconazole, fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin. The basic characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. The randomization process and selection of the reported results were not reported clearly in most trials (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

Table 1. Basic Characteristics of Included Studies.

Source Country Population Interventions Patients, No. Mean age, (range), y RoB2
A B
Akiyama et al,14 1993 Japan Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 200 mg orally every d AMB 800 mg orally 3×/d 130 43.32 (15-67) 2
Annaloro et al,15 1995 Italy Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 300 mg orally every d ITCZ 400 mg po/IV every d 59 33.62 (13-56) 2
Behre et al,16 1995 Germany Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT AMB 10 mg INH 2×/d Placebo 115 43.00 (18-81) 2
Benhamou et al,17 1991 France Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) KTCZ 200-600 mg orally every d Placebo 125 7.00 (NA) 2
Bodey et al,18 1994 United States Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 400 mg orally every d AMB 0.5 mg/kg IV 3×/wk 77 46.47 (17-80) 2
Boogaerts et al,19 2001 Finland Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT ITCZ 400 mg orally 2×/d AMB 500 mg orally 3×/d Nystatin 2 mIU orally 4×/d 277 46.92 (NA) 2
Brincker,20 1978 Denmark Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy MICZ 500 mg orally 4×/d Placebo 30 NA 2
Brincker,21 1983 Denmark Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy KTCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 38 58.50 (NA) 2
Chaftari et al,22 2012 United States Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic HSCT) POCZ 200 mg orally 3×/d AMBL 7.5 mg/kg IV 1×/wk 40 55.48 (20-69) 2
Chandrasekar and Gatney,23 1994 United States Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 46 38.00 (NA) 3
Choi et al,24 2005 Korea Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic HSCT) FLCZ 200 mg orally every d ITCZ 200 mg orally every d 78 34.43 (18-56) 3
Cornely et al,25 2007 International Patients with AML or MDS receiving chemotherapy POCZ 200 mg orally 3×/d FLCZ 400 mg orally every d or ITCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d 602 49.44 (13-82) 2
Donnelly et al,26 1984 UK Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy or HSCT KTCZ 400 mg orally every d AMB 100 mg orally 4×/d 36 37.38 (13-63) 2
Egger et al,27 1995 Switzerland Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 400 mg orally every d Polyene, nystatin 8 mIU orally 3×/d 89 38.42 (14-73) 3
Ellis et al,28 1994 Saudi Arabia Patients with hematological malignancies receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 200 mg orally every d Polyene, clotrimazole 10 mg 2×/d 90 23.33 (12-70) 2
Epstein et al,29 2018 United States Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy POCZ 200 mg orally 3×/d MCFG 100 mg IV every d 113 60.02 (26-75) 2
Estey et al,30 1984 United States Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy KTCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 70 37.22 (16-78) 3
Fisher et al,31 2019 United States Patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 400 mg orally every d CASP 50 mg IV every d 510 9.49 (0-26) 2
Glasmache et al,32 2006 Germany Patients with hematological malignancies receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 400 mg orally every d ITCZ 2.5mg/kg orally 2×/d 494 48.94 (NA) 1
Goodman et al,33 1992 United States Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 356 NA 2
Hansen et al,34 1987 United States Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or HSCT KTCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 56 NA 2
Harousseau et al,35 2000 International Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or HSCT ITCZ 2.5 mg/kg orally 2×/d AMB 500 mg orally 4×/d 557 48.74 (15-82) 1
Hayashi et al,36 2014 Japan Patients with grade II-IV acute GVHD or chronic GVHD receiving corticosteroid treatment ITCZ 2.5 mg/kg orally 2×/d VOCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d 66 NA 2
Hiemenz et al,37 2005 United States Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg IV every d MCFG 5 mg/kg IV 2×/d 74 43.24 (19-65) 3
Hiramatsu et al,38 2008 Japan Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg IV every d MCFG 150 mg IV every d 100 46.90 (16-67) 2
Huang et al,39 2012 China Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) ITCZ 5 mg/kg orally every d MCFG 50 mg IV every d 283 32.72 (18-70) 3
Huijgens et al,40 1999 Netherlands Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 50 mg orally 2×/d ITCZ 100 mg orally 2×/d 202 45.15 (NA) 2
Ito et al,41 2007 Japan Patients with AML or MDS receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 200 mg orally every d ITCZ 200 mg orally every d 218 55.46 (16-80) 3
Kaptan et al,42 2003 Turkey Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy ITCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 97 35.58 (20-73) 3
Kelsey et al,43 1999 International Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) AMBL 2 mg/kg IV 3×/wk Placebo 161 39.92 (15-65) 1
Kern et al,44 1998 International Patients with AML receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 400 mg orally every d AMB 40 mg orally every 4 h (6×/d) 68 48.71 (17-73) 2
Koh et al,45 2002 Singapore Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 200 mg orally every d AMB 0.2 mg/kg IV every d 186 29.69 (4-63) 2
Lass-Florl et al,46 2003 Austria Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy ITCZ 5 mg/kg orally 2×/d AMB 1000 mg orally 3×/d 106 43.94 (NA) 3
Laverdiere et al,47 2000 Canada Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or undergoing transplantation FKCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 266 46.31 (17-80) 2
Mahmoud et al,48 2016 Egypt Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy MCFG 1 mg/kg IV every d Placebo 70 7.35 (0-18) 2
Marks et al,49 2011 International Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic HSCT) ITCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d VOCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d 465 42.78 (11-70) 3
Marr et al,50 2004 United States Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally or IV every d ITCZ 2.5 mg/kg orally 3×/d or 200 mg IV every d 299 NA 2
Mattiuzzi et al,51 2003 United States Patients with AML or MDS receiving chemotherapy AMBL 3 mg/kg IV 3×/wk FLCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d and ITCZ 200 mg/kg orally 2×/d 137 60.57 (19-84) 2
Mattiuzzi et al,52 2006 United States Patients with AML or MDS receiving chemotherapy ITCZ 200 mg IV every d CASP 50 mg IV every d 200 62.17 (17-82) 2
Mattiuzzi et al,53 2011 United States Patients with AML or MDS receiving chemotherapy ITCZ 200 mg IV every d VOCZ 300 mg IV 2×/d 123 59.42 (21-83) 2
Menichetti et al,54 1999 Italy Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or HSCT ITCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 405 44.00 (17-79) 2
Morgenstern et al,55 1999 United Kingdom Patients with hematological malignanct neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 100 mg orally every d ITCZ 2.5 mg/kg orally 2×/d 445 44.55 (16-81) 2
Nucci et al,56 2000 Brazil Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or HSCT ITCZ 100 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 210 27.7 (5-67) 2
Oren et al,57 2006 Israel Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 400 mg orally or IV every d ITCZ 200 mg orally or IV every d 195 49.49 (17-75) 3
Palmblad et al,58 1992 Sweden Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy KTCZ 200 mg orally every d Placebo 107 50.47 (15-74) 2
Park et al,59 2016 Korea Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally every d MCFG 50 mg IV every d 250 46.66 (20-64) 2
Penack et al,60 2006 Germany Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT AMBL 50 mg IV every other d Placebo 132 53.76 (21-77) 3
Perfect et al,61 1992 United States Bone marrow transplant recipients (autologous HSCT) AMB 0.1 mg/kg IV every d Placebo 182 38.75 (24-55) 2
Philpott-Howard et al,62 1993 International Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 50 mg orally 2×/d Polyene, nystatin 1 mIU orally 4×/d or AMB 500 mg orally 4×/d 536 45.9 (11-87) 3
Rijnders et al,63 2008 Netherlands Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT AMBL 12.5 mg INH every d Placebo 271 49.49 (18-74) 1
Riley et al,64 1994 United States Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) AMB 0.1 mg/kg IV every d Placebo 35 38.00 (10-52) 3
Rotstein et al,65 1999 Canada Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT FLCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 304 46.40 (17-80) 2
Sawada et al,66 2009 Japan Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FlCZ 10 mg/kg IV every d MCFG 2 mg/kg IV every d 107 6.01 (NA) 2
Schaffner and Schaffner,67 1995 Swizerland Patients with AML or NHL receiving chemotherapy or HSCT FLCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 151 39.5 (17-71) 2
Schwartz et al,68 1999 Germany Patients with hematological malignant neoplasmscies receiving chemotherapy or HSCT AMB 10 mg INH 2×/d Placebo 382 46.81 (16-81) 1
Shen et al,69 2013 China Patients with AML or MDS receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 400 mg orally every d POCZ 200 mg orally TID 234 40.00 (15-68) 3
Slavin et al,70 1995 Australia Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally every d Placebo 300 36.35 (13-65) 2
Tollemar et al,71 1993 Sweden Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) AMBL 1 mg/kg IV every d Placebo 53 58.3 (NA) 2
Ullmann et al,72 2007 International Patients with grade II-IV acute GVHD or chronic GVHD FLCZ 200 mg orally 3×/d POCZ 200 mg orally 3×/d 600 41.30 (13-72) 2
Van Burik et al,73 2004 United States Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg IV every d MCFG 50 mg IV every d 882 42.52 (0-73) 2
Vehreschild et al,74 2007 Germany Patients with AML receiving chemotherapy VOCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 25 53.60 (18-73) 3
Vreugdenhil et al,75 1993 Netherlands Patients with hematological malignant neoplasms receiving chemotherapy ITCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 92 49.5 (15-75) 2
Wingard et al,76 1987 United States Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy or HSCT MICZ 5 mg/kg IV every d Placebo 208 33.93 (6-75) 2
Wingard et al,77 2010 United States Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally every d VOCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d 600 43.00 (2-65) 3
Winston et al,78 1993 United States Patients with acute leukemia receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 400 mg orally every d or 200 mg IV 2×/d Placebo 256 43.47 (17-82) 2
Winston et al,79 2003 United States Hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allogeneic HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally or IV every d ITCZ 200 mg IV every d 138 39.54 (14-63) 1
Wolff et al,80 2000 United States Bone marrow transplant recipients (allogeneic and autologous HSCT) FLCZ 400 mg orally or IV every d AMB 0.2 mg/kg IV every d 355 42.55 (18-68) 2
Yamac et al,81 1995 Turkey Patients with hematological diseases receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 200 mg orally 2×/d Placebo 70 49.41 (16-68) 2
Young et al,82 1999 International Patients with leukemia receiving chemotherapy FLCZ 200 mg orally every d Polyene, nystatin 8 mIU orally every d 164 43.23 (17-80) 2
Open in a new tab

Abbrevations: AMB, amphotericin B; AMBL, liposomal amphotericin B; CASP, caspofungin; FLCZ, fluconazole; KTCZ, ketoconazole; ITCZ, itraconazole; INH, inhalation; IV, intravenously; MCFG, micafungin; NA, not available; POCZ, posaconazole; RoB2, revised tool for risk of bias; VOCZ, voriconazole.

Network Geometry and Synthesis of Results

The network geometry for each outcome is shown in eFigure 3 in the Supplement: fungal infections included 12 groups, 69 studies, and 14 789 patients; IFIs included 12 groups (Figure 1), 64 studies, and 12 943 patients; proven IFIs included 11 groups, 37 studies, and 7179 patients; invasive candidiasis included 12 groups, 45 studies, and 9838 patients; invasive aspergillosis included 12 groups, 40 studies, and 7958 patients; mortality included 12 groups, 69 studies, and 14 789 patients; fungi-related deaths included 12 groups, 45 studies, and 8636 patients; and withdrawal included 11 groups, 39 studies, and 9056 patients. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparisons are shown as forest plots (eFigure 4 in the Supplement).

Figure 1. Schematic of the Network of Evidence Used in Network Meta-analysis for Invasive Fungal Infections.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

AMB indicates conventional amphotericin B; AMBL, liposomal amphotericin B; KTCZ, ketoconazole; FLCZ, fluconazole; ITCZ, itraconazole; VOCZ, voriconazole; POCZ, posaconazole; CASP, caspofungin; and MCFG, micafungin.

The SUCRA value and rank of each agent for each outcome are shown in Table 2. Regarding IFIs, posaconazole was the approach with the highest ranking (SUCRA, 86.7%; mean rank, 2.5). The 2 approaches with the next-highest rankings were caspofungin (SUCRA, 84.2%) and micafungin (SUCRA, 76.4%). Posaconazole was associated with a significant reduction in IFIs (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79) and invasive aspergillosisus infections (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85) compared with placebo (Figure 2). Regarding mortality, the treatment ranked highest was micafungin (SUCRA, 90.0%; mean rank, 2.1). Voriconazole ranked second (SUCRA, 73.8%), and posaconazole ranked third (SUCRA, 68.5%).

Table 2. SUCRA Values and Mean Rank for All Outcomes.

Measure Fungal infections IFIs Proven IFIs Invasive candidiasis Invasive aspergillosis Mortality Fungi-related death Withdrawal
Overall
Placebo
SUCRA, % 6.2 19.2 25.3 11.6 40.9 38.0 33.7 45.2
Mean rank 11.3 9.9 8.5 10.7 7.5 7.8 8.3 6.5
Polyene
SUCRA, % 27.5 12.6 37.0 31.0 18.0 15.0 22.6 72.0
Mean rank 9.0 10.6 7.3 8.6 10.0 10.4 9.5 3.8
Amphotericin B
SUCRA, % 37.5 41.0 14.1 3.6 69.3 42.7 28.3 50.5
Mean rank 7.9 7.5 9.6 11.6 4.4 7.3 8.9 5.9
Liposomal amphotericin B
SUCRA, % 46.8 61.5 59.7 44.2 37.8 61.8 78.8 4.3
Mean rank 6.8 5.2 5.0 7.1 7.8 5.2 3.3 10.6
Miconazole
SUCRA, % 76.6 55.2 NA 60.7 42.3 44.5 58.5 NA
Mean rank 3.6 5.9 NA 5.3 7.3 7.1 5.6 NA
Ketoconazole
SUCRA, % 58.4 17.1 6.3 26.6 63.4 15.4 7.5 63.0
Mean rank 5.6 10.1 10.4 9.1 5.0 10.3 11.2 4.7
Fluconazole
SUCRA, % 48.8 45.8 60.5 67.1 24.2 49.0 51.6 41.0
Mean rank 6.6 7.0 4.9 4.6 9.3 6.6 6.3 6.9
Itraconazole
SUCRA, % 28.4 64.6 75.4 80.5 22.4 47.1 64.3 38.0
Mean rank 8.9 4.9 3.5 3.1 9.5 6.8 4.9 7.2
Voriconazole
SUCRA, % 30.5 36.9 81.5a 67.1 51.2 73.8 75.0 78.1a
Mean rank 8.6 8.4 2.9 4.6 6.4 3.9 3.8 3.2
Posaconazole
SUCRA, % 82.9 86.7a 78.6 62.6 87.8a 68.5 76.2a 17.5
Mean rank 2.9 2.5 3.1 5.1 2.3 4.5 3.6 9.2
Caspofungin
SUCRA, % 84.9a 84.2 35.1 88.5a 78.6 54.2 36.9 67.6
Mean rank 2.7 2.7 7.5 2.3 3.4 6.0 7.9 4.2
Micafungin
SUCRA, % 71.4 75.0 76.4 56.6 64.0 90.0a 66.6 72.7
Mean rank 4.1 3.7 3.4 5.8 5.0 2.1 4.7 3.7
Transplantation
Placebo
SUCRA, % 8.5 7.4 4.5 2.3 41.8 25.7 25.6 45.8
Mean rank 8.3 7.5 7.7 6.9 4.5 5.5 4.7 4.8
Polyene
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Amphotericin B
SUCRA, % 44.1 48.2 44.5 75.9 22.6 94.2a 23.4 48.0
Mean rank 5.5 4.6 4.9 2.4 5.6 1.3 4.8 4.6
Liposomal amphotericin B
SUCRA, % 14.3 25.2 40.7 30.7 40.7 36.3 32.7 6.4
Mean rank 7.9 6.2 5.1 5.2 4.6 4.8 4.4 7.6
Miconazole
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ketoconazole
SUCRA, % 42.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Fluconazole
SUCRA, % 48.3 44.2 44.2 56.8 37.8 44.5 59.0 62.3
Mean rank 5.1 4.9 4.9 3.6 4.7 4.3 3.0 3.6
Itraconazole
SUCRA, % 69.7 66.9 59.5 77.8a 54.2 32.3 72.7 35.0
Mean rank 3.4 3.3 3.8 2.3 3.7 5.1 2.4 5.6
Voriconazole
SUCRA, % 75.1a 68.4 71.6a 60.9 70.5 49.2 NA 89.4a
Mean rank 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.3 2.8 4.0 NA 1.7
Posaconazole
SUCRA, % 73.0 76.3a 69.5 NA NA NA NA 28.2
Mean rank 3.2 2.7 3.1 NA NA NA NA 6.0
Caspofungin
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Micafungin
SUCRA, % 74.2 63.4 65.5 45.6 82.3a 67.7 86.6a 84.9
Mean rank 3.1 3.6 3.4 4.3 2.1 2.9 1.7 2.1
AML or MDS
Placebo
SUCRA, % 73.5 74.0 NA NA NA 22.5 NA NA
Mean rank 2.9 2.8 NA NA NA 6.4 NA NA
Polyene
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Amphotericin B
SUCRA, % 11.9 14.3 54.2a 45.8 43.5 66.7 55.9 NA
Mean rank 7.2 7.0 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.3 3.6 NA
Liposomal amphotericin B
SUCRA, % 18.0 11.5 NA 21.0 55.4 44.4 59.4 44.6
Mean rank 6.7 7.2 NA 4.9 3.2 4.9 3.4 3.8
Miconazole
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ketoconazole
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Fluconazole
SUCRA, % 52.0 53.1 49.0 50.0 26.5 56.1 59.8 71.9
Mean rank 4.4 4.3 2.5 3.5 4.7 4.1 3.4 2.4
Itraconazole
SUCRA, % 42.4 43.5 53.4 55.7 14.6 28.5 18.2 28.5
Mean rank 5.0 5.0 2.4 3.2 5.3 6.0 5.9 4.6
Voriconazole
SUCRA, % 82.7 83.1 NA NA NA 55.8 58.5 6.8
Mean rank 2.2 2.2 NA NA NA 4.1 3.5 5.7
Posaconazole
SUCRA, % 83.4a 83.3a NA 46.4 84.0a 80.1a 83.0a 89.5a
Mean rank 2.2 2.2 NA 3.7 1.8 2.4 2.0 1.5
Caspofungin
SUCRA, % 35.9 37.2 43.4 81.1a 76.0 45.8 15.4 58.7
Mean rank 5.5 5.4 2.7 1.9 2.2 11.0 6.1 3.1
Micafungin
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Allo-HSCT
Placebo
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Polyene
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Amphotericin B
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Liposomal amphotericin B
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Miconazole
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ketoconazole
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Fluconazole
SUCRA, % 4.4 4.7 10.3 27.9 15.9 60.1 22.4 50.8
Mean rank 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.7 1.8 1.8 2.0
Itraconazole
SUCRA, % 65.3 66.0 64.6 85.8a 40.9 14.5 77.6a 0.0
Mean rank 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 2.2 2.7 1.2 3.0
Voriconazole
SUCRA, % 80.3a 79.3a 75.1a 36.3 93.3a 75.4a NA 99.2a
Mean rank 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.3 1.1 1.5 NA 1.0
Posaconazole
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Caspofungin
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Micafungin
SUCRA, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mean rank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; NA, not available; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

a

Ranking first among agents.

Figure 2. Forest Plot of Invasive Fungal Infections .

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The dotted line indicates null effect; diamonds, relative risk (RR); and black whiskers, 95% CI; red whiskers, 95% predicted interval (PrI); AMB, conventional amphotericin B; AMBL, liposomal amphotericin B; KTCZ, ketoconazole; FLCZ, fluconazole; ITCZ, itraconazole; VOCZ, voriconazole; POCZ, posaconazole; CASP, caspofungin; and MCFG, micafungin.

Caspofungin (SUCRA, 84.9%) treatment ranked the highest for reducing fungal infections. Posaconazole ranked highest in preventing invasive aspergillosis (SUCRA, 87.8%). Caspofungin was ranked highest for preventing invasive candidiasis (SUCRA, 88.5%), and liposomal amphotericin B ranked the highest for reducing fungi-related deaths (SUCRA, 78.8%). Voriconazole was associated with a significant reduction in invasive candidiasis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.26) compared with placebo (eFigure 5 in the Supplement). Voriconazole was ranked highest for having the lowest incidence of withdrawal (SUCRA, 78.1%). Posaconazole was associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal because of the adverse effects of the drug (SUCRA, 17.5%; mean rank, 9.2) (eFigure 6 in the Supplement).

Subgroup Analyses

Because extensive categories of patients were included, we evaluated whether the prophylactic outcomes and tolerance of agents varied in different patient populations (patients with acute myeloid leukemia [AML] or myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS] or undergoing HSCT or allo-HSCT). Considering efficacy and tolerance, voriconazole was ranked as the best choice for patients undergoing HSCT; this result was also found in the allo-HSCT population. However, posaconazole was ranked as the best choice for patients with AML or MDS.

Heterogeneity, Inconsistency, and Small-Study Effects

Heterogeneity and inconsistency are shown in Table 3. Heterogeneity was low for IFIs and mortality. In contrast, heterogeneity was reasonable for the other outcomes (τ2 values from 0.1 to 0.4). Loop inconsistency for placebo, amphotericin B, and fluconazole was found for invasive candidiasis (indirect effect estimate, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.07-3.98; P = .001) (eFigure 7 in the Supplement). We used a funnel plot to visually demonstrate small-study effects (eFigure 8 in the Supplement).

Table 3. Tests for Inconsistency, Heterogeneity, and Small-Study Effects.

Outcome Inconsistency at the overall level Heterogeneity (τ2) Begg test P value
χ2 P value
Fungal infections 13.97 .45 0.118 .06
IFIs 10.04 .75 0.069 .40
Proven IFIs 8.77 .11 0.112 .40
Invasive candidiasis 13.51 .09 0.284 .35
Invasive aspergillosis 8.60 .48 0.192 .91
Mortality 6.20 .91 0.016 .48
Fungi-related death 13.05 .16 0.303 .93
Withdrawal 13.67 .06 0.334 .51
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: IFI, invasive fungal infection.

Discussion

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we combined direct and indirect evidence to compare antifungal prophylaxis options for patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT. Our analysis may provide some important information for clinical decision-making for antifungal prophylaxis in these patients. We derived 2 principal findings from our analysis: voriconazole may be the best choice for patients undergoing HSCT, and posaconazole may be the best prophylactic option for patients with AML or MDS. Posaconazole is recommended for IFIs during remission induction chemotherapy for AML and MDS, according to the Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology.83 Overall, posaconazole and voriconazole are recommended as the most reasonable options for the prevention of IFIs. The difference between agents may be meaningful and is not available from single trials, to our knowledge. For instance, voriconazole has not been directly compared with other drugs except for placebo, fluconazole, and itraconazole; however, this network meta-analysis compared voriconazole, as well as posaconazole, with other drugs indirectly.

Posaconazole is recommended for the prevention of IFIs regardless of tolerance. The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse effects of oral posaconazole were digestive tract symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and gastrointestinal upset.84 The most common cause for discontinuation was severe nausea or gastrointestinal upset.85 We noticed that the incidence of withdrawal was different in patients with AML or MDS and patients undergoing HSCT. We assumed that in patients undergoing HSCT, especially allo-HSCT, a high-dose pretreatment scheme, the use of cyclosporin and the incidence of gastrointestinal acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) would decrease the tolerance of posaconazole. The rate of adverse events that led to the discontinuation of posaconazole was 40% in the study by Chatter et al.22 In the posaconazole group, the rate of diarrhea was 67%, of nausea was 67%, and of vomiting was 29%. The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was similar between the liposomal amphotericin B and posaconazole groups. A new route of administration through injection may be an option for patients who are unable to swallow or are intolerant of oral posaconazole.

Caspofungin is recommended to prevent invasive candidiasis, and the same results were confirmed in patients with AML or MDS. There were no relevant data from patients undergoing HSCT. An echinocandin drug is recommended as the initial therapy for candidemia, according to the clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.86 In our analysis, posaconazole was ranked the best choice for preventing invasive Aspergillus infections, followed by caspofungin. According to the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, posaconazole, voriconazole, and micafungin are recommended for invasive aspergillosis prevention.87 However, in our analysis, it appeared that caspofungin treatment was associated with a better outcome than micafungin and voriconazole in preventing aspergillosis. Concerning the prevention of fungi-related death, treatment with liposomal amphotericin B might be associated with a better outcome, followed by posaconazole and voriconazole. There was no significant difference in fungi-related death with posaconazole.

Some previous studies have summarized the data from the literature on antifungal prophylaxis in hematological disease.88,89,90 These network meta-analyses did not take into account antifungal prophylaxis in other high-risk groups, such as patients with GVHD.91 With regard to GVHD, the risk of IFIs appears particularly prominent in patients with high-grade acute GVHD or steroid-dependent chronic GVHD.91 Our network meta-analysis has taken into account antifungal prophylaxis in patients with GVHD. A high number of patients with solid tumor without HSCT therapy were included in previous network meta-analyses. In the study by Ninane et al,92 solid tumors were present in more than 20% of patients. We did not consider this study appropriate for a network meta-analysis for antifungal prophylaxis, as routine antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended in patients with solid tumors.91 The evidence shown by Leonart et al88 focused on double-blind trials, and the study by Zhao et al89 focused on triazole agents. Therefore, the conclusions of the comparisons in those reports cannot be compared with the results in this meta-analysis.

Inconsistency refers to the differences between direct and various indirect effect estimates for the same comparison. Stata tests for inconsistency have 2 levels12: overall inconsistency, in which the level of inconsistency is computed according to the type of between-treatment comparison for all cases and a local approach, in which each treatment is individually examined. Local inconsistency because of loop inconsistency in placebo, amphotericin B, and fluconazole was found for invasive candidiasis in our analysis. There are 4 causes of inconsistency: chance, bias in head-to-head comparisons, bias in indirect comparisons, and genuine diversity.93 According to Higgins et al11 loop inconsistency refers to a difference between direct and indirect comparisons. The study by Behre et al16 may be the source of the loop inconsistency because aerosol amphotericin B inhalation treatment was used. When this study was excluded from the analysis, the difference between direct and indirect comparisons of the treatments for invasive candidiasis was not significant.

The interpretations of the results were based on SUCRA values and ranking in our study. Although rankings are appealing, they may be incorrectly emphasize particular treatments as being clinically useful. The uncertainty present in the rankings may be neglected in considering the best treatment, and the rankings may give a false sense that some interventions are superior to others. A PRISMA-NMA statement has suggested that more attention should be paid to the relative effect estimates, rather than the rankings, because a good rank does not necessarily translate to a clinically relevant effect.6 Although the usefulness of rankings is currently debated, rankings will probably continue to be reported. Reporting all probabilities for each intervention with each possible rank is one way to convey the uncertainty in the rank ordering.94 The treatment effects and rankings also depend on the number of treatments and trials in the network.95

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. First, an improved understanding of antifungal pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics has resulted in therapeutic drug monitoring becoming a valuable adjunct to the administration of some antifungal agents. We could not perform an analysis of therapeutic drug monitoring to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of antifungal prophylaxis or justify why therapeutic drug monitoring should not be performed with antifungal prophylaxis if it is strongly recommended with antifungal treatment because of the limited data. Second, the follow-up time of most studies was too short to determine the survival benefits from antifungal prophylaxis. Third, a limited number of head-to-head trials have investigated posaconazole and voriconazole. Fourth, the characteristics of patients and treatments were heterogeneous among the various randomized clinical trials. Although our subgroup analyses found different results among different patient populations, the data did not allow us to perform more detailed analyses, such as those for different ages and races/ethnicities. We also could not perform a more stratified analysis taking into consideration the dosage form and dose of agents. Therefore, the evidence derived from this meta-analysis should be used with caution for shared decision-making. However, our study provides important data from which future practice-changing prospective trials can be designed.

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis assessed the performance of various antifungal prophylaxis treatment in patients with hematological disease or undergoing HSCT. Our findings suggest that, in terms of the prevention of IFIs and tolerance, voriconazole may be the best prophylactic option for patients undergoing HSCT, and posaconazole may be the best prophylactic option for patients with AML or MDS.

Supplement.

eAppendix. Search Strategy

eFigure 1. PRISMA Flowchart

eFigure 2. Quality Assessment

eFigure 3. Network Geometry of All Outcomes

eFigure 4. Forest Plots of All Outcomes

eFigure 5. League Tables of All Outcomes

eFigure 6. Cluster Rank Combined the SUCRA

eFigure 7. Inconsistency Plot of All Outcomes

eFigure 8. Funnel Plots of All Outcomes

Click here for additional data file. (4.5MB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Maertens JA, Girmenia C, Brüggemann RJ, et al. ; European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL), a joint venture of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the Immunocompromised Host Society (ICHS) and; European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL), a joint venture of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the Immunocompromised Host Society (ICHS) and the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) . European guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult haematology patients: summary of the updated recommendations from the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(12):3221-3230. doi: 10.1093/jac/dky286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang J, Zhan P, Zhou R, et al. Prophylaxis with itraconazole is more effective than prophylaxis with fluconazole in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Med Oncol. 2010;27(4):1082-1088. doi: 10.1007/s12032-009-9339-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xu SX, Shen JL, Tang XF, Feng B, Xu HQ. Newer antifungal agents micafungin and voriconazole for fungal infection prevention during hematopoietic cell transplantation: a meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20(2):381-390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bow EJ, Vanness DJ, Slavin M, et al. Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:128. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-0855-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(2):130-137. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-784. doi: 10.7326/M14-2385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76654. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. The Stata Journal 2011;11:255-70. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1101100206 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163-171. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98-110. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shim S, Yoon BH, Shin IS, Bae JM. Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39:e2017047. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2017047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):818-827. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Akiyama H, Mori S, Tanikawa S, Sakamaki H, Onozawa Y. Fluconazole versus oral amphotericin B in preventing fungal infection in chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. Mycoses. 1993;36(11-12):373-378. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.1993.tb00725.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Annaloro C, Oriana A, Tagliaferri E, et al. Efficacy of different prophylactic antifungal regimens in bone marrow transplantation. Haematologica. 1995;80(6):512-517. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Behre GF, Schwartz S, Lenz K, et al. Aerosol amphotericin B inhalations for prevention of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in neutropenic cancer patients. Ann Hematol. 1995;71(6):287-291. doi: 10.1007/BF01697981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Benhamou E, Hartmann O, Noguès C, Maraninchi D, Valteau D, Lemerle J. Does ketoconazole prevent fungal infection in children treated with high dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation: results of a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1991;7(2):127-131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bodey GP, Anaissie EJ, Elting LS, Estey E, O’Brien S, Kantarjian H. Antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction therapy for acute leukemia fluconazole versus intravenous amphotericin B. Cancer. 1994;73(8):2099-2106. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Boogaerts M, Maertens J, van Hoof A, et al. Itraconazole versus amphotericin B plus nystatin in the prophylaxis of fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48(1):97-103. doi: 10.1093/jac/48.1.97 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Brincker H. Prophylactic treatment with miconazole in patients highly predisposed to fungal infection: a placebo-controlled double-blind study. Acta Med Scand. 1978;204(1-2):123-128. doi: 10.1111/j.0954-6820.1978.tb08410.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brincker H. Prevention of mycosis in granulocytopenic patients with prophylactic ketoconazole treatment. Mykosen. 1983;26(5):242-247. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.1983.tb03203.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chaftari AM, Hachem RY, Ramos E, et al. Comparison of posaconazole versus weekly amphotericin B lipid complex for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Transplantation. 2012;94(3):302-308. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182577485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chandrasekar PH, Gatny CM; Bone Marrow Transplantation Team . The effect of fluconazole prophylaxis on fungal colonization in neutropenic cancer patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994;33(2):309-318. doi: 10.1093/jac/33.2.309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Choi SM, Lee DG, Choi JH, et al. Itraconazole oral solution versus fluconazole syrup for prevention of invasive fungal infections in patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial. Infect Chemother. 2005;37(2):71-78. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, et al. Posaconazole vs fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):348-359. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Donnelly JP, Starke ID, Galton DA, Catovsky D, Goldman JM, Darrell JH. Oral ketoconazole and amphotericin B for the prevention of yeast colonization in patients with acute leukaemia. J Hosp Infect. 1984;5(1):83-91. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(84)90105-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Egger T, Gratwohl A, Tichelli A, et al. Comparison of fluconazole with oral polyenes in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a prospective, randomized, single-center study. Support Care Cancer. 1995;3(2):139-146. doi: 10.1007/BF00365855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ellis ME, Clink H, Ernst P, et al. Controlled study of fluconazole in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies and bone marrow transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;13(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/BF02026116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Epstein DJ, Seo SK, Huang YT, et al. Micafungin versus posaconazole prophylaxis in acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome: a randomized study. J Infect. 2018;77(3):227-234. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.03.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Estey E, Maksymiuk A, Smith T, et al. Infection prophylaxis in acute leukemia: comparative effectiveness of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, ketoconazole, and a combination of the two. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144(8):1562-1568. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1984.00350200054006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fisher BT, Zaoutis T, Dvorak CC, et al. Effect of caspofungin vs fluconazole prophylaxis on invasive fungal disease among children and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(17):1673-1681. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.15702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Glasmacher A, Cornely O, Ullmann AJ, et al. ; Itraconazole Research Group of Germany . An open-label randomized trial comparing itraconazole oral solution with fluconazole oral solution for primary prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancy and profound neutropenia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57(2):317-325. doi: 10.1093/jac/dki440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Goodman JL, Winston DJ, Greenfield RA, et al. A controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent fungal infections in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(13):845-851. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199203263261301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hansen RM, Reinerio N, Sohnle PG, et al. Ketoconazole in the prevention of candidiasis in patients with cancer: a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147(4):710-712. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1987.00370040092016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Harousseau JL, Dekker AW, Stamatoullas-Bastard A, et al. Itraconazole oral solution for primary prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with hematological malignancy and profound neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind, double-placebo, multicenter trial comparing itraconazole and amphotericin B. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(7):1887-1893. doi: 10.1128/AAC.44.7.1887-1893.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hayashi Y, Kanda Y, Nakamae H, et al. Voriconazole vs itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with GVHD: a randomized trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014; 20(2):S91. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.12.117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hiemenz J, Cagnoni P, Simpson D, et al. Pharmacokinetic and maximum tolerated dose study of micafungin in combination with fluconazole versus fluconazole alone for prophylaxis of fungal infections in adult patients undergoing a bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplant. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(4):1331-1336. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.4.1331-1336.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hiramatsu Y, Maeda Y, Fujii N, et al. ; West-Japan Hematology and Oncology Group (West-JHOG) . Use of micafungin versus fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Int J Hematol. 2008;88(5):588-595. doi: 10.1007/s12185-008-0196-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Huang X, Chen H, Han M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, open-label study comparing the efficacy and safety of micafungin versus itraconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(10):1509-1516. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Huijgens PC, Simoons-Smit AM, van Loenen AC, et al. Fluconazole versus itraconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in haemato-oncology. J Clin Pathol. 1999;52(5):376-380. doi: 10.1136/jcp.52.5.376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ito Y, Ohyashiki K, Yoshida I, et al. The prophylactic effect of itraconazole capsules and fluconazole capsules for systemic fungal infections in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes: a Japanese multicenter randomized, controlled study. Int J Hematol. 2007;85(2):121-127. doi: 10.1532/IJH97.06079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kaptan K, Ural AU, Cetin T, Avcu F, Beyan C, Yalçin A. Itraconazole is not effective for the prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with neutropenia. J Infect Chemother. 2003;9(1):40-45. doi: 10.1007/s10156-002-0207-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kelsey SM, Goldman JM, McCann S, et al. Liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome) in the prophylaxis of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;23(2):163-168. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kern W, Behre G, Rudolf T, et al. ; German AML Cooperative Group . Failure of fluconazole prophylaxis to reduce mortality or the requirement of systemic amphotericin B therapy during treatment for refractory acute myeloid leukemia: results of a prospective randomized phase III study. Cancer. 1998;83(2):291-301. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Koh LP, Kurup A, Goh YT, Fook-Chong SM, Tan PH. Randomized trial of fluconazole versus low-dose amphotericin B in prophylaxis against fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Am J Hematol. 2002;71(4):260-267. doi: 10.1002/ajh.10234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lass-Flörl C, Gunsilius E, Gastl G, et al. Fungal colonization in neutropenic patients: a randomized study comparing itraconazole solution and amphotericin B solution. Ann Hematol. 2003;82(9):565-569. doi: 10.1007/s00277-003-0666-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Laverdière M, Rotstein C, Bow EJ, et al. Impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on fungal colonization and infection rates in neutropenic patients: the Canadian Fluconazole Study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46(6):1001-1008. doi: 10.1093/jac/46.6.1001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mahmoud AM. Micafungin as a Prophylactic Antifungal During Induction Phase of Chemotherapy for Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Master’s thesis. Cairo University; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Marks DI, Pagliuca A, Kibbler CC, et al. ; IMPROVIT Study Group . Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Br J Haematol. 2011;155(3):318-327. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08838.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marr KA, Crippa F, Leisenring W, et al. Itraconazole versus fluconazole for prevention of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants. Blood. 2004;103(4):1527-1533. doi: 10.1182/blood-2003-08-2644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mattiuzzi GN, Estey E, Raad I, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B versus the combination of fluconazole and itraconazole as prophylaxis for invasive fungal infections during induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Cancer. 2003;97(2):450-456. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mattiuzzi GN, Alvarado G, Giles FJ, et al. Open-label, randomized comparison of itraconazole versus caspofungin for prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(1):143-147. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.1.143-147.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mattiuzzi GN, Cortes J, Alvarado G, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous voriconazole and intravenous itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(1):19-26. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0783-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Menichetti F, Del Favero A, Martino P, et al. ; GIMEMA Infection Program, Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’ Adulto . Itraconazole oral solution as prophylaxis for fungal infections in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28(2):250-255. doi: 10.1086/515129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Morgenstern GR, Prentice AG, Prentice HG, Ropner JE, Schey SA, Warnock DW; U.K. Multicentre Antifungal Prophylaxis Study Group . A randomized controlled trial of itraconazole versus fluconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancies. Br J Haematol. 1999;105(4):901-911. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01465.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Nucci M, Biasoli I, Akiti T, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of itraconazole capsules as antifungal prophylaxis for neutropenic patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(2):300-305. doi: 10.1086/313654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Oren I, Rowe JM, Sprecher H, et al. A prospective randomized trial of itraconazole vs fluconazole for the prevention of fungal infections in patients with acute leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;38(2):127-134. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Palmblad J, Lönnqvist B, Carlsson B, et al. Oral ketoconazole prophylaxis for Candida infections during induction therapy for acute leukaemia in adults: more bacteraemias. J Intern Med. 1992;231(4):363-370. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.1992.tb00945.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Park S, Kim K, Jang JH, et al. Randomized trial of micafungin versus fluconazole as prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. J Infect. 2016;73(5):496-505. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Penack O, Schwartz S, Martus P, et al. Low-dose liposomal amphotericin B in the prevention of invasive fungal infections in patients with prolonged neutropenia: results from a randomized, single-center trial. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(8):1306-1312. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Perfect JR, Klotman ME, Gilbert CC, et al. Prophylactic intravenous amphotericin B in neutropenic autologous bone marrow transplant recipients. J Infect Dis. 1992;165(5):891-897. doi: 10.1093/infdis/165.5.891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Philpott-Howard JN, Wade JJ, Mufti GJ, Brammer KW, Ehninger G; Multicentre Study Group . Randomized comparison of oral fluconazole versus oral polyenes for the prevention of fungal infection in patients at risk of neutropenia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;31(6):973-984. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.6.973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rijnders BJ, Cornelissen JJ, Slobbe L, et al. Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B for the prevention of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis during prolonged neutropenia: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(9):1401-1408. doi: 10.1086/586739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Riley DK, Pavia AT, Beatty PG, et al. The prophylactic use of low-dose amphotericin B in bone marrow transplant patients. Am J Med. 1994;97(6):509-514. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(94)90345-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Rotstein C, Bow EJ, Laverdiere M, Ioannou S, Carr D, Moghaddam N; The Canadian Fluconazole Prophylaxis Study Group . Randomized placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole prophylaxis for neutropenic cancer patients: benefit based on purpose and intensity of cytotoxic therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28(2):331-340. doi: 10.1086/515128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Sawada A, Sakata N, Higuchi B, et al. Comparison of micafungin and fosfluconazole as prophylaxis for invasive fungal infection during neutropenia in children undergoing chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Article in Japanese. Rinsho Ketsueki. 2009;50(12):1692-1699. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Schaffner A, Schaffner M. Effect of prophylactic fluconazole on the frequency of fungal infections, amphotericin B use, and health care costs in patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy for hematologic neoplasias. J Infect Dis. 1995;172(4):1035-1041. doi: 10.1093/infdis/172.4.1035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Schwartz S, Behre G, Heinemann V, et al. Aerosolized amphotericin B inhalations as prophylaxis of invasive aspergillus infections during prolonged neutropenia: results of a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Blood. 1999;93(11):3654-3661. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Shen Y, Huang XJ, Wang JX, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole as invasive fungal infection prophylaxis in China: a multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;51(9):738-745. doi: 10.5414/CP201880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Slavin MA, Osborne B, Adams R, et al. Efficacy and safety of fluconazole prophylaxis for fungal infections after marrow transplantation: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Infect Dis. 1995;171(6):1545-1552. doi: 10.1093/infdis/171.6.1545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Tollemar J, Ringdén O, Andersson S, Sundberg B, Ljungman P, Tydén G. Randomized double-blind study of liposomal amphotericin B (Ambisome) prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in bone marrow transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1993;12(6):577-582. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Ullmann AJ, Lipton JH, Vesole DH, et al. Posaconazole or fluconazole for prophylaxis in severe graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):335-347. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.van Burik JA, Ratanatharathorn V, Stepan DE, et al. ; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group . Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(10):1407-1416. doi: 10.1086/422312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Vehreschild JJ, Böhme A, Buchheidt D, et al. A double-blind trial on prophylactic voriconazole (VRC) or placebo during induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML). J Infect. 2007;55(5):445-449. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2007.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Vreugdenhil G, Van Dijke BJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Efficacy of itraconazole in the prevention of fungal infections among neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies and intensive chemotherapy: a double blind, placebo controlled study. Leuk Lymphoma. 1993;11(5-6):353-358. doi: 10.3109/10428199309067926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wingard JR, Vaughan WP, Braine HG, Merz WG, Saral R. Prevention of fungal sepsis in patients with prolonged neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous miconazole. Am J Med. 1987;83(6):1103-1110. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90949-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wingard JR, Carter SL, Walsh TJ, et al. ; Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network . Randomized, double-blind trial of fluconazole versus voriconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2010;116(24):5111-5118. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-02-268151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Winston DJ, Chandrasekar PH, Lazarus HM, et al. Fluconazole prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with acute leukemia: results of a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(7):495-503. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Winston DJ, Maziarz RT, Chandrasekar PH, et al. Intravenous and oral itraconazole versus intravenous and oral fluconazole for long-term antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients: a multicenter, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(9):705-713. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-9-200305060-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wolff SN, Fay J, Stevens D, et al. Fluconazole vs low-dose amphotericin B for the prevention of fungal infections in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation: a study of the North American Marrow Transplant Group. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000;25(8):853-859. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Yamaç K, Senol E, Haznedar R. Prophylactic use of fluconazole in neutropenic cancer patients. Postgrad Med J. 1995;71(835):284-286. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.71.835.284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Young GA, Bosly A, Gibbs DL, Durrant S; Antifungal Prophylaxis Study Group . A double-blind comparison of fluconazole and nystatin in the prevention of candidiasis in patients with leukaemia. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(8):1208-1213. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00102-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Mellinghoff SC, Panse J, Alakel N, et al. Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancies: 2017 update of the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO). Ann Hematol. 2018;97(2):197-207. doi: 10.1007/s00277-017-3196-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Keating GM. Posaconazole. Drugs. 2005;65(11):1553-1567. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200565110-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Guarascio AJ, Slain D. Review of the new delayed-release oral tablet and intravenous dosage forms of posaconazole. Pharmacotherapy. 2015;35(2):208-219. doi: 10.1002/phar.1533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(4):e1-e50. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ1194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Patterson TF, Thompson GR III, Denning DW, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(4):e1-e60. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Leonart LP, Tonin FS, Ferreira VL, et al. A network meta-analysis of primary prophylaxis for invasive fungal infection in haematological patients. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(5):530-538. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Zhao YJ, Khoo AL, Tan G, et al. Network meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole in invasive fungal infection prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60(1):376-386. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01985-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Lee CH, Lin C, Ho CL, Lin JC. Primary fungal prophylaxis in hematological malignancy: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(8):e00355-e18. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00355-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Blyth CC, Gilroy NM, Guy SD, et al. Consensus guidelines for the treatment of invasive mould infections in haematological malignancy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation, 2014. Intern Med J. 2014;44(12b):1333-1349. doi: 10.1111/imj.12598 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ninane J; Multicentre Study Group . A multicentre study of fluconazole versus oral polyenes in the prevention of fungal infection in children with hematological or oncological malignancies. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;13(4):330-337. doi: 10.1007/BF01974614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181(8):488-493. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Trinquart L, Attiche N, Bafeta A, Porcher R, Ravaud P. Uncertainty in treatment rankings: reanalysis of network meta-analyses of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(10):666-673. doi: 10.7326/M15-2521 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Mills EJ, Kanters S, Thorlund K, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Ioannidis JP. The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey. BMJ. 2013;347:f5195. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement.

eAppendix. Search Strategy

eFigure 1. PRISMA Flowchart

eFigure 2. Quality Assessment

eFigure 3. Network Geometry of All Outcomes

eFigure 4. Forest Plots of All Outcomes

eFigure 5. League Tables of All Outcomes

eFigure 6. Cluster Rank Combined the SUCRA

eFigure 7. Inconsistency Plot of All Outcomes

eFigure 8. Funnel Plots of All Outcomes

Click here for additional data file. (4.5MB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Network Open are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES