Comparison of Antifungal Prophylaxis Drugs in Patients With Hematological Disease or Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Authors: Jing Wang, Min Zhou, Jing-Yan Xu, Rong-Fu Zhou, Bing Chen, Yuan Wan
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2020)

<h3>Importance</h3> Several antifungal drugs are available for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with hematological disease or who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). <h3>Objective</h3> To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and adverse effects of antifungal agents using an integrated comparison. <h3>Data Sources</h3> 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. <h3>Study Selection</h3> 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. <h3>Data Extraction and Synthesis</h3> 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. <h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> 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. <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> 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.