Antifungal Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients After Chemotherapy or Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose To evaluate the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on all-cause mortality as primary outcome, invasive fungal infections (IFIs), and adverse events. Many studies have evaluated the role of antifungal prophylaxis in cancer patients, with inconsistent conclusions. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing systemic antifungals with placebo, no intervention, or other antifungal agents for prophylaxis in cancer patients after chemotherapy. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings, and references were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. Results Sixty-four trials met inclusion criteria. Antifungal prophylaxis decreased all-cause mortality significantly at end of follow-up compared with placebo, no treatment, or nonsystemic antifungals (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95). In allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients, prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85), fungal-related mortality, and documented IFI. In acute leukemia patients, there was a significant reduction in fungal-related mortality and documented IFI, whereas the difference in mortality was only borderline significant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.06). Prophylaxis with itraconazole suspension reduced documented IFI when compared with fluconazole, with no difference in survival, and at the cost of more adverse events. On the basis of two studies, posaconazole prophylaxis reduced all-cause mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98), fungal-related mortality, and IFI when compared with fluconazole. Conclusion Antifungal prophylaxis decreases all-cause mortality significantly in patients after chemotherapy. Antifungal prophylaxis should be administered to patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT, and should probably be administered to high-risk acute leukemia patients.

Download Full-text

Immunoglobulin Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v110.11.4962.4962 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 110 (11) ◽

pp. 4962-4962

Author(s):

Pia Raanani ◽

Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽

Mical Paul ◽

Isaac Ben-Bassat ◽

Leonard Leibovici ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Acute Gvhd ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hematopoietic Stem ◽

Allogeneic Hsct ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Autologous Hsct

Abstract Background: Many studies have evaluated the role of polyvalent immunoglobulins (IVIG) and CMV-hyperimmune IVIG (CMV-IVIG) prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), with inconsistent results and implications for practice. Objectives: To evaluate the role of IVIG and CMV- IVIG prophylaxis in HSCT. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing IVIG or CMV- IVIG with placebo or no intervention (control) for prophylaxis in HSCT. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references were searched until 2007. Primary outcome: all-cause-mortality ; Secondary outcomes: CMV infections, acute graft versus host disease (GVHD), interstitial pneumonitis (IP), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and adverse events. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled. Results: Nineteen trials met inclusion criteria. IVIG was compared to control in 10 trials (7 IVIG in allogeneic HSCT, 2 allogeneic/autologous HSCT and 1 autologous HSCT). When IVIG was compared to control, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89–1.18, 6 trials, Fig.). There was a reduction in the number of CMV infections (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50–0.99, 4 trials) and in the number of episodes of IP (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.87, 6 trials). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of acute GVHD (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.83–1.05, 6 trials). The risk for VOD was increased (RR 2.71; 95% CI 1.06–6.94, 3 trials) as were adverse events in the IVIG group (RR 8.12; 95% CI 3.15–20.9, 5 trials). CMV-IVIG was compared to control in 7 trials, all allogeneic HSCT. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63–1.16, 4 trials). In addition, there were no differences in the risk for developing CMV infections (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.86–1.33, 7 trials), acute GVHD (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.72–1.44, 5 trials) or IP (0.95; 95% CI 0.58–1.56, 5 trials). Conclusions: Our review demonstrates that IVIG prophylaxis for HSCT reduces the risk for CMV infections and IP without a significant influence on mortality. The beneficial effects should be weighed against the higher incidence of adverse events, VOD, and cost associated with the use of prophylactic IVIG in HSCT patients. Conversely, the use of CMV-IVIG was not associated with a change in any of the parameters. Outcomes Summary Outcome IVIG vs. control CMV-IVIG vs. control All Cause Mortality RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89–1.18 RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63–1.16 CMV infections RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50–0.99 RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.86–1.33 acute GVHD RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.83–1.05 RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.72–1.44 IP RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.87 RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.58–1.56 VOD RR 2.71; 95% CI 1.06–6.94 No data Adverse events RR 8.12; 95% CI 3.15–20.9 RR 7.0; 95% CI 0.38–129.34 Figure Figure

Download Full-text

Mesenchymal stromal cells as prophylaxis for graft-versus-host disease in haplo-identical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients with severe aplastic anemia?—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stem Cell Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13287-021-02170-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ruonan Li ◽

Jingke Tu ◽

Jingyu Zhao ◽

Hong Pan ◽

Liwei Fang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ◽

Stem Cell Transplantation ◽

Stromal Cells ◽

Acute Gvhd ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cmv Infection ◽

Hematopoietic Stem ◽

Graft Versus Host

Abstract Background Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are an emerging prophylaxis option for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in haplo-identical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT) recipients with severe aplastic anemia (SAA), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of MSCs as prophylaxis for GVHD in SAA patients with haplo-HSCT. Methods Studies were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and http://clinicaltrials.gov from establishment to February 2020. Twenty-nine single-arm studies (n = 1456) were included, in which eight (n = 241) studies combined with MSCs and eleven (n = 1215) reports without MSCs in haplo-HSCT for SAA patients. The primary outcomes were the incidences of GVHD. Other outcomes included 2-year overall survival (OS) and the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the results pooled through random or fixed effects models. Results Between MSCs and no MSCs groups, no significant differences were found in the pooled incidences of acute GVHD (56.0%, 95% CI 48.6–63.5% vs. 47.2%, 95% CI 29.0–65.4%; OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.91–2.25; p = 0.123), grade II–IV acute GVHD (29.8%, 95% CI 24.1–35.5% vs. 30.6%, 95% CI 26.6–34.6%; OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70–1.32; p = 0.889), and chronic GVHD (25.4%, 95% CI 19.8–31.0% vs. 30.0%, 95% CI 23.3–36.6%; OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56–1.11; p = 0.187). Furtherly, there was no obvious difference in 2-year OS (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.60–1.61; p = 1.000) and incidence of CMV infection (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40–1.92; p = 0.018). Conclusions Our meta-analysis indicates that the prophylactic use of MSC co-transplantation is not an effective option for SAA patients undergoing haplo-HSCT. Hence, the general co-transplantation of MSCs for SAA haplo-HSCT recipients may lack evidence-based practice.

Download Full-text