Systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical outcomes associated with isavuconazole versus relevant comparators for patients with invasive aspergillosis

References

• Gregg KS, Kauffman CA. Invasive aspergillosis: epidemiology, clinical aspects, and treatment. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2015;36:662-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neofytos D, Avdic E, Magiorakos AP. Clinical safety and tolerability issues in use of triazole derivatives in management of fungal infections. Drug Healthc Patient Saf 2010;2:27-38
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andes D, Azie N, Yang H, et al. Drug-drug interaction associated with mold-active triazoles among hospitalized patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016;60:3398-406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maertens JA, Raad, II, Marr KA, et al. Isavuconazole versus voriconazole for primary treatment of invasive mould disease caused by Aspergillus and other filamentous fungi (SECURE): a phase 3, randomised-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;387:760-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson TF, Thompson GR 3rd, Denning DW, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016;63:e1-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tissot F, Agrawal S, Pagano L, et al. ECIL-6 guidelines for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, aspergillosis and mucormycosis in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Haematologica 2017;102:433-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullmann AJ, Aguado JM, Arikan-Akdagli S, et al. Diagnosis and management of Aspergillus diseases: executive summary of the 2017 ESCMID-ECMM-ERS guideline. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24 (Suppl 1):e1-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, et al. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:279-301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee AW. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:138-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews; CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, UK: CRD, University of York, 2009
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword [Last accessed 6 June 2017]
   Google Scholar
• The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 2011. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/ [Last accessed 6 June 2017]
   Google Scholar
• Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23:3105-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 2011. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk [Last accessed 26 February 2018]
   Google Scholar
• Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 2013;33:607-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:1813-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascioglu S, Rex JH, de Pauw B, et al. Defining opportunistic invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplants: an international consensus. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:7-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leenders AC, Daenen S, Jansen RL, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of documented and suspected neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections. Br J Haematol 1998;103:205-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornely OA, Maertens J, Bresnik M, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B as initial therapy for invasive mold infection: a randomized trial comparing a high-loading dose regimen with standard dosing (AmBiLoad trial). Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:1289-97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornely OA, Maertens J, Bresnik M, et al. Efficacy outcomes in a randomised trial of liposomal amphotericin B based on revised EORTC/MSG 2008 definitions of invasive mould disease. Mycoses 2011;54:e449-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, et al. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 2002;347:408-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson TF, Boucher HW, Herbrecht R, et al. Strategy of following voriconazole versus amphotericin B therapy with other licensed antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis: impact of other therapies on outcome. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:1448-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbrecht R, Patterson TF, Slavin MA, et al. Application of the 2008 definitions for invasive fungal diseases to the trial comparing voriconazole versus amphotericin B for therapy of invasive aspergillosis: a collaborative study of the Mycoses Study Group (MSG 05) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Infectious Diseases Group. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:713-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinz WJ, Cornely OA, Franks B, et al. A phase III, randomized, double-blind trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of isavuconazole versus voriconazole in patients with invasive mold disease (SECURE): outcomes in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients with invasive aspergillosis [abstract]. Blood 2014;124:1133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone NR, Bicanic T, Salim R, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome): a review of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical experience and future directions. Drugs 2016;76:485-500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend R, Dietz A, Hale C, et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of CYP3A4-mediated drug–drug interactions of isavuconazole with rifampin, ketoconazole, midazolam, and ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone in healthy adults. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 2017;6:44-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolton MJ, McLachlan AJ. Voriconazole pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships: assessing the links between exposure, efficacy and toxicity. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014;44:183-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar