2116. Comparative Effectiveness of Amphotericin B, Azoles, and Echinocandins in the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend the use of echinocandins, amphotericin B or fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. The objective of our study was to compare these agents through a systematic review of the literature and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods Three electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched from database inception to January 1 2019. Randomized controlled trials that compared triazoles, echinocandins and/or amphotericin B (either in lipid formulation or deoxycholate form) for the treatment of invasive candidiasis or candidemia were included. Among included studies, treatment success was collected as the primary outcome and was assessed by a random effect network meta-analysis using Bayesian estimation methods. A sensitivity analysis was performed for all patients with candidemia. Results Eleven randomized controlled trials met the study inclusion criteria. Of the 2,475 patients included from these trials, 684 received an echinocandin, 855 received amphotericin B and 936 received a triazole. Echinocandins were associated with the highest rate of treatment success when compared with amphotericin B (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02–1.93) and the triazoles (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.32–2.51). Similarly, in the pre-specified analysis of candidemic patients, echinocandins were also more effective overall than amphotericin B (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.84–1.87) and triazoles (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16–2.44). Patients treated with triazoles had a lower rate of treatment success than amphotericin B in the overall (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60–1.01) and candidemia sensitivity analyses (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56–1.01) Rank probability analysis favored echinocandins as the most effective treatment choice 98% of the time. Conclusion In our meta-analysis comparing treatment strategies for severe Candida infections, the echinocandins had the highest rate of treatment success compared with both amphotericin B and triazoles. Echinocandins should be considered as first-line agents in the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Further research is needed to determine the minimum duration of echinocandin treatment prior to using step-down therapy. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".