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
BACKGROUND + OBJECTIVES: The echinocandins, amphotericin B preparations, voriconazole and fluconazole are approved for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, though it remains unclear which agent is most effective. In order to answer this question, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated these agents in comparison. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from database inception to 8 October 2020. RCTs comparing triazoles, echinocandins or amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis or candidemia were included. Random effect Bayesian network meta-analysis methods were used to compare treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of the 3528 patients included from these trials, 1531 were randomised to receive an echinocandin, 944 to amphotericin B and 1053 to a triazole. For all forms of invasive candidiasis, echinocandins were associated with the highest rate of treatment success when compared to amphotericin B (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.92) and the triazoles (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35-2.51). Rank probability analysis favoured echinocandins as the most effective choice 98% of the time. Overall survival did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with invasive candidiasis, echinocandins had the best clinical outcomes and should remain the first-line agents in the treatment of invasive candidiasis.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".