Effects and moderators of psychosocial interventions on quality of life, and emotional and social function in patients with cancer: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 22 RCTs

Objective

This individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions (PSI) on quality of life (QoL), emotional function (EF), and social function (SF) in patients with cancer, and to study moderator effects of demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention‐related characteristics.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified via literature searches in 4 databases. We pooled IPD from 22 (n = 4217) of 61 eligible randomized controlled trials. Linear mixed‐effect model analyses were used to study intervention effects on the post‐intervention values of QoL, EF, and SF (z‐scores), adjusting for baseline values, age, and cancer type. We studied moderator effects by testing interactions with the intervention for demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention‐related characteristics, and conducted subsequent stratified analyses for significant moderator variables.Results: PSI significantly improved QoL (β = 0.14,95%CI = 0.06;0.21), EF (β = 0.13,95%CI = 0.05;0.20), and SF (β = 0.10,95%CI = 0.03;0.18). Significant differences in effects of different types of PSI were found, with largest effects of psychotherapy. The effects of coping skills training were moderated by age, treatment type, and targeted interventions. Effects of psychotherapy on EF may be moderated by cancer type, but these analyses were based on 2 randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes of some cancer types.

Conclusions

PSI significantly improved QoL, EF, and SF, with small overall effects. However, the effects differed by several demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention‐related characteristics. Our study highlights the beneficial effects of coping skills training in patients treated with chemotherapy, the importance of targeted interventions, and the need of developing interventions tailored to the specific needs of elderly patients.

Randomized, double-blind trial of anidulafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in high-risk liver transplant recipients

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a common complication in liver transplant recipients. There are no previous randomized trials of an echinocandin for the prevention of IFIs in solid organ transplant recipients. In a randomized, double-blind trial conducted at University-affiliated transplant centers, 200 high-risk liver transplant recipients (100 patients per group) received either anidulafungin or fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis. Randomization was stratified by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥30 and receipt of a pretransplant antifungal agent. The primary end point was IFI in a modified intent-to-treat analysis. The overall incidence of IFI was similar for the anidulafungin (5.1%) and the fluconazole groups (8.0%) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.19-1.94, p = 0.40). However, anidulafungin prophylaxis was associated with less Aspergillus colonization or infection (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.08), lower breakthrough IFIs among patients who had received pretransplant fluconazole (0% vs. 27%, p = 0.07), and fewer cases of antifungal resistance (no cases vs. 5 cases). Both drugs were well-tolerated. Graft rejection, fungal-free survival, and mortality were similar for both groups. Thus, anidulafungin and fluconazole have similar efficacy for antifungal prophylaxis in most liver transplant recipients. Anidulafungin may be beneficial if the patient has an increased risk for Aspergillus infection or received fluconazole before transplantation.