Prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents to prevent invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants

Prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis with probiotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is the most frequent gastrointestinal emergency in neonates. The microbiome of the preterm gut may regulate the integrity of the intestinal mucosa. Probiotics may positively contribute to mucosal integrity, potentially reducing the risk of NEC in neonates.

OBJECTIVE

To perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the prevention of NEC in premature infants.

DATA SOURCES

Structured searches were performed in: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (all via Ovid, from 2013 to January 2015). Clinical trial registries and electronically available conference materials were also searched. An updated search was conducted June 3, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials including infants less than 37 weeks gestational age or less than 2,500 g on probiotic vs. standard therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction of the newly-identified trials with a double check of the previously-identified trials was performed using a standardized data collection tool.

RESULTS

Thirteen additional trials (n = 5,033) were found. The incidence of severe NEC (RR 0.53 95% CI [0.42-0.66]) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.79 95% CI [0.68-0.93]) were reduced. No difference was shown in culture-proven sepsis RR 0.88 95% CI [0.77-1.00].

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of organisms and dosing regimens studied prevent a species-specific treatment recommendation from being made.

CONCLUSIONS

Preterm infants benefit from probiotics to prevent severe NEC and death.

Duration and intensity of fluconazole for prophylaxis in preterm neonates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The currently available evidence shows fluconazole is an effective prophylaxis treatment against invasive fungal infections in preterm neonates in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). However, the duration and dosing of this prophylaxis treatment remain controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis and systematic review are necessary.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched with no restrictions. All relevant citations that compared prophylactic fluconazole and no prophylaxis were considered for inclusion. Pooled effect estimates were obtained through fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, and a meta-regression was used to explore the sources of heterogeneity in the data.

RESULTS

Five independent randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving 1006 preterm neonates were identified. Compared with no prophylaxis, the overall combined relative risks (RRs) of invasive fungal infection with the 28- and 42-day durations of prophylactic fluconazole were 0.80 (95 % CI 0.48-1.35, p = 0.4048) and 0.30 (95 % CI 0.15-0.58, p = 0.0004), respectively. The fluconazole dose had no significant impact on the RR of invasive fungal infections. The RR of mortality presented no significant differences between prophylactic fluconazole and no prophylaxis (RR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.12, p = 0.2093).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with fluconazole for 42 days was found to be superior to no prophylaxis as a strategy for preventing invasive fungal infection in preterm infants in NICUs except in terms of mortality. The dosing regimen of prophylactic fluconazole may have no impact on the outcome; however, due to the limitations of the available data, further research is needed.

Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections are important causes of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. Early institution of antifungal therapy is pivotal for mortality reduction. Starting a targeted antifungal therapy after culture positivity and fungi identification requires a long time. Therefore, alternative strategies (globally defined as 'untargeted antifungal treatments') for antifungal therapy institution in patients without proven microbiological evidence of fungal infections have been discussed by international guidelines. This review was originally published in 2006 and updated in 2016. This updated review provides additional evidence for the clinician dealing with suspicion of fungal infection in critically ill, non-neutropenic patients, taking into account recent findings in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) compared to placebo or no antifungal or any other antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) in non-neutropenic, critically ill adults and children. We assessed effectiveness in terms of total (all-cause) mortality and incidence of proven invasive fungal infections as primary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), and EMBASE (OVID). We also searched reference lists of identified studies and major reviews, abstracts of conference proceedings, scientific meetings and clinical trials registries. We contacted experts in the field, study authors and pharmaceutical companies as part of the search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (irrespective of language or publication status) comparing the use of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) to placebo, no antifungal, or another antifungal agent in non-neutropenic critically ill participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently applied selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion. We synthesized data using the random-effects model and expressed the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies (total of 2761 participants). Of those 22 studies, 12 were included in the original published review and 10 were newly identified. Eleven trials compared the use of fluconazole to placebo or no antifungal treatment. Three trials compared ketoconazole versus placebo. One trial compared anidulafungin with placebo. One trial compared caspofungin to placebo. Two trials compared micafungin to placebo. One trial compared amphotericin B to placebo. Two trials compared nystatin to placebo and one trial compared the effect of clotrimazole, ketoconazole, nystatin and no treatment. We found two new ongoing studies and four new studies awaiting classification. The RCTs included participants of both genders with wide age range, severity of critical illness and clinical characteristics. Funding sources from pharmaceutical companies were reported in 11 trials and one trial reported funding from a government agency. Most of the studies had an overall unclear risk of bias for key domains of this review (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data). Two studies had a high risk of bias for key domains. Regarding the other domains (blinding of participants and personnel, outcome assessment, selective reporting, other bias), most of the studies had a low or unclear risk but four studies had a high risk of bias.There was moderate grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly reduce or increase total (all-cause) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, P value = 0.36; participants = 2374; studies = 19). With regard to the outcome of proven invasive fungal infection, there was low grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced the risk (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, P value = 0.0001; participants = 2024; studies = 17). The risk of fungal colonization was significantly reduced (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, P value = 0.03; participants = 1030; studies = 12) but the quality of evidence was low. There was no difference in the risk of developing superficial fungal infection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.29, P value = 0.24; participants = 662; studies = 5; low grade of evidence) or in adverse events requiring cessation of treatment between the untargeted treatment group and the other group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P value = 0.51; participants = 1691; studies = 11; low quality of evidence). The quality of evidence for the outcome of total (all-cause) mortality was moderate due to limitations in study design. The quality of evidence for the outcome of invasive fungal infection, superficial fungal infection, fungal colonization and adverse events requiring cessation of therapy was low due to limitations in study design, non-optimal total population size, risk of publication bias, and heterogeneity across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that the use of untargeted antifungal treatment is not associated with a significant reduction in total (all-cause) mortality among critically ill, non-neutropenic adults and children compared to no antifungal treatment or placebo. The untargeted antifungal treatment may be associated with a reduction of invasive fungal infections but the quality of evidence is low, and both the heterogeneity and risk of publication bias is high.Further high-quality RCTs are needed to improve the strength of the evidence, especially for more recent and less studied drugs (e.g. echinocandins). Future trials should adopt standardized definitions for microbiological outcomes (e.g. invasive fungal infection, colonization) to reduce heterogeneity. Emergence of resistance to antifungal drugs should be considered as outcome in studies investigating the effects of untargeted antifungal treatment to balance risks and benefit.

Prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents to prevent invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infection is an important cause of mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Uncertainty exists about the effect of prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungals to reduce mucocutaneous colonisation and so limit the risk of invasive fungal infection in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal therapy on the incidence of invasive fungal infection, mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to May 2015), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal therapy versus placebo or no drug or another antifungal agent or dose regimen in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials, in which a total of 1800 infants participated, compared oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal prophylaxis (nystatin or miconazole) with placebo or no drug. These trials had various methodological weaknesses including quasi-randomisation, lack of allocation concealment, and lack of blinding of intervention and outcomes assessment. The incidence of invasive fungal infection was very high in the control groups of three of these trials. Meta-analysis found a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of invasive fungal infection (typical risk ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.27; risk difference -0.18, -0.21 to -0.15) but substantial statistical heterogeneity was present. We did not find a statistically significant effect on mortality (typical risk ratio 0.87, 0.72 to 1.05; risk difference -0.03, -0.06 to 0.01). None of the trials assessed posthospital discharge outcomes. Three trials (N = 326) assessed the effect of oral/topical non-absorbed versus systemic antifungal prophylaxis. Meta-analyses did not find any statistically significant differences in the incidences of invasive fungal infection or all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The finding of a reduction in risk of invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants treated with oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal prophylaxis should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. Further large randomised controlled trials in current neonatal practice settings are needed to resolve this uncertainty. These trials might compare oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents with placebo, with each other, or with systemic antifungal agents and should include an assessment of effect on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.