Skip to main content

Table 3 Pooled summary estimates derived from direct and network meta-analyses on the comparative efficacy of prophylaxis antifungal agents against IFIs

From: Network meta-analysis of triazole, polyene, and echinocandin antifungal agents in invasive fungal infection prophylaxis in patients with hematological malignancies

Comparisons Direct estimate, OR (95% CI) Network meta-analysis, OR (95% CrI)
Compared with fluconazole
 Itraconazole 0.71 (0.44–1.15) 0.78 (0.50–1.15)
 Posaconazole 0.32 (0.16–0.62) 0.30 (0.12–0.60)
 Voriconazole 0.93 (0.53–1.62) 0.73 (0.31–1.38)
 Amphotericin B 0.96 (0.33–2.83) 1.28 (0.71–2.04)
 Caspofungin 0.36 (0.14–0.89) 0.56 (0.20–1.27)
 Micafungin 0.88 (0.36–2.16) 0.84 (0.25–2.11)
 Placebo 2.20 (1.42–3.42) 2.19 (1.39–3.16)
Compared with itraconazole
 Posaconazole 0.21 (0.08–0.62) 0.40 (0.15–0.85)
 Voriconazole 0.48 (0.13–1.72) 0.98 (0.40–1.92)
 Amphotericin B 1.78 (0.76–4.18) 1.70 (0.86–2.85)
 Caspofungin 1.14 (0.37–3.45) 0.74 (0.26–1.68)
 Micafungin 1.13 (0.31–2.92)
 Placebo 1.77 (0.83–3.76) 2.92 (1.64–4.63)
Compared with posaconazole
 Voriconazole 2.85 (0.83–7.08)
 Amphotericin B 3.30 (0.14–76.46)) 4.97 (1.73–11.35)
 Caspofungin 2.20 (0.55–6.24)
 Micafungin 1.58 (0.40–6.30) 3.13 (0.85–8.32)
 Placebo 8.51 (3.25–18.72)
Compared with voriconazole
 Amphotericin B 1.40 (0.35–5.52) 1.96 (0.80–4.06)
 Caspofungin 0.87 (0.23–2.41)
 Micafungin 1.32 (0.30–4.01)
 Placebo 3.40 (1.41–7.14)
Compared with amphotericin B
 Caspofungin 0.47 (0.14–1.20)
 Micafungin 0.71 (0.19–1.95)
 Placebo 1.11 (0.66–1.87) 1.80 (1.04–2.95)
Compared with caspofungin
 Micafungin 1.88 (0.35–5.81)
 Placebo 4.85 (1.54–11.27)
Compared with micafungin
 Placebo 3.46 (0.95–9.06)
  1. Numbers in bold are statistically significant differences
  2. CI Confidence interval, CrI credible interval, IFIs invasive fungal infections, OR odds ratio