4.1 Article

Newer Antifungal Agents for Fungal Infection Prevention During Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 407-414

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.07.149

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The efficacy of newer antifungal agents to provide effective prophylaxis during stem cell transplantation has not yet been established. We compared the clinical outcomes using of the newer triazoles and echinocandins for antifungal prophylaxis. Methods. We electronically searched the databases of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, EMBASE, and relevant articles from 1987 through 2011. We examined comparative studies for survival, proven fungal infections, mortality, and adverse effects. Our meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.1.6 software with funnel plot regression analysis to assess publication bias. Results. Among 1443 records were 17 studies including 5122 patients for analyses. Pooled comparisons of studies showed antifungal prophylaxis with the new agents to reduce the incidence of invasive fungal infections greater than fluconazole or itraconazole. A reduction in invasive fungal infections was achieved using micafungin, voriconazole, and posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis. Posaconazole and voriconazole prophylaxis decreased transplant mortality compared with fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis. Voriconazole and posaconzole showed greater rates of liver dysfunction and lower incidences gastrointestinal side effects than fluconazole. Caspofungin and voriconazole treatment incurred lower rates of nephrotoxic effects than amphotericin B. Only voriconazole displayed significantly decreased adverse events requiring drug discontinuation compared with fluconazole or itraconazole. Conclusions. This analysis indicated new antifungal agents were well-tolerated with manageable side effects. They were beneficial for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据