ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
The efficacy and safety of first-line monotherapies in primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis: a systematic review.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in the post-COVID-19 era: diagnosis, treatment, and what lies ahead.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Several antifungals are available for the treatment of patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA). This study aims to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of the first-line monotherapies in primary therapy of IA through network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, Wanfang database, and China Biology Medicine for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2023 that evaluated the efficacy and safety of monotherapies. We performed NMA with a frequentist random effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Primary outcomes were the all-cause mortality at week 12, and secondary outcomes included overall response rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) and severe adverse events (SAEs). Results: A total of three RCTs involving 1,368 participants (four antifungals) were included. The NMA showed that compared to amphotericin B deoxycholate (D-AmB), the triazoles (posaconazole (POS), isavuconazole (ISA) and voriconazole (VCZ)) can improve the overall response rate in primary therapy of IA, but only VCZ and ISA can reduce the all-cause mortality at week 12 for patients with proven and probable IA (VCZ vs D-AmB: RR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.47-0.93, moderate certainty; ISA vs D-AmB: RR = 0.52, 95%CI = 0 .31-0.86, low certainty). ISA (SUCRA = 93.50%; mean rank, 1.20) seemed to be the most effective therapy in the above population. As to proven, probable, and possible IA patients, the triazoles were superior to D-AmB in terms of reducing all-cause mortality. Furthermore, the risk of AEs and SAEs was comparable for the three triazoles, but the risk of SAEs was significantly higher for D-AmB than others. Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of triazoles are more favorable than D-AmB in the primary therapy of IA, with ISA being the optimal choice. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023407632.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.