Dataset Information

Trough concentration of voriconazole and its relationship with efficacy and safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The optimum trough concentration of voriconazole for clinical response and safety is controversial. The objective of this review was to determine the optimum trough concentration of voriconazole and evaluate its relationship with efficacy and safety.MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library and three Chinese literature databases were searched. Observational studies that compared clinical outcomes below and above the trough concentration cut-off value were included. We set the trough concentration cut-off value for efficacy as 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 mg/L and for safety as 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 mg/L. The efficacy outcomes were invasive fungal infection-related mortality, all-cause mortality, rate of successful treatment and rate of prophylaxis failure. The safety outcomes included incidents of hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity and visual disorders.A total of 21 studies involving 1158 patients were included. Compared with voriconazole trough concentrations of >0.5 mg/L, levels of <0.5 mg/L significantly decreased the rate of treatment success (risk ratio?=?0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.74). The incidence of hepatotoxicity was significantly increased with trough concentrations >3.0, >4.0, >5.5 and >6.0 mg/L. The incidence of neurotoxicity was significantly increased with trough concentrations >4.0 and >5.5 mg/L.A voriconazole level of 0.5 mg/L should be considered the lower threshold associated with efficacy. A trough concentration >3.0 mg/L is associated with increased hepatotoxicity, particularly for the Asian population, and >4.0 mg/L is associated with increased neurotoxicity.

SUBMITTER: Jin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4896404 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trough concentration of voriconazole and its relationship with efficacy and safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jin Haiying H Wang Tiansheng T Falcione Bonnie A BA Olsen Keith M KM Chen Ken K Tang Huilin H Hui John J Zhai Suodi S

The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 20160310 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>The optimum trough concentration of voriconazole for clinical response and safety is controversial. The objective of this review was to determine the optimum trough concentration of voriconazole and evaluate its relationship with efficacy and safety.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library and three Chinese literature databases were searched. Observational studies that compared clinical outcomes below and above the trough concentration cut-off ...[more]

PMID: 26968880

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been limited evaluation of the association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). AIM:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for vedolizumab. METHODS:Through a systematic literature search through 28 February 2019, we identified five cohort studies (558 patients, 42% with ulcerative colitis) reporting the association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with IBD. We calculated mean difference (MD) in vedolizumab trough concentration in patients achieving vs not achieving clinical outcomes, and qualitatively synthesized thresholds associated with favourable outcomes. RESULTS:In patients with UC, median vedolizumab trough concentrations were consistently higher in patients achieving clinical remission (median, 14.3 ?g/mL vs 10.5 ?g/mL; MD, 5.1 ?g/mL, 95% CI, 2.8-7.4) or endoscopic remission (median, 13.0 ?g/mL vs 9.7; MD, 5.1 ?g/mL, 95% CI, 2.2-7.9). In patients with CD, there was no significant difference in median vedolizumab trough concentrations in patients achieving vs not achieving clinical remission (MD, 2.0 ?g/mL; 95% CI, -0.5 to 4.5) or endoscopic remission (MD, 3.6 ?g/mL; 95% CI, -1.4 to 8.6). In patients with UC, week 6 vedolizumab trough concentrations ?18.5-20.8 ?g/mL, and maintenance trough concentrations ?9.0-12.6 ?g/mL were associated with favourable clinical outcomes. Antibodies to vedolizumab were reported in 1.7%-3.0% patients on maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION:Based on meta-analysis, patients with UC who achieve endoscopic and clinical remission have significantly higher vedolizumab trough concentration during maintenance therapy. Vedolizumab trough concentration >20 ?g/mL at week 6, and >12 ?g/mL during maintenance may be associated with better outcomes, though cause-effect relationship remains unclear. Prospective studies on reactive and proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of vedolizumab (vs empiric dose escalation) are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundCefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.

Dataset Information

Trough concentration of voriconazole and its relationship with efficacy and safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Trough concentration of voriconazole and its relationship with efficacy and safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets