Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Fungal infection-related mortality versus total mortality as an outcome in trials of antifungal agents

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 6, Article number: 40 (2006) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Disease specific mortality is often used as outcome rather than total mortality in clinical trials. This approach assumes that the classification of cause of death is unbiased. We explored whether use of fungal infection-related mortality as outcome rather than total mortality leads to bias in trials of antifungal agents in cancer patients.

Methods

As an estimate of bias we used relative risk of death in those patients the authors considered had not died from fungal infection. Our sample consisted of 69 trials included in four systematic reviews of prophylactic or empirical antifungal treatment in patients with cancer and neutropenia we have published previously.

Results

Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. The trials comprised 6130 patients and 869 deaths, 220 (25%) of which were ascribed to fungal infection. The relative risk of death was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75–0.96) for total mortality, 0.57 (95% CI 0.44–0.74) for fungal mortality, and 0.95 (95% CI 0.82–1.09) for mortality among those who did not die from fungal infection.

Conclusion

We could not support the hypothesis that use of disease specific mortality introduces bias in antifungal trials on cancer patients as our estimate of the relative risk for mortality in those who survived the fungal infection was not increased. We conclude that it seems to be reliable to use fungal mortality as the primary outcome in trials of antifungal agents. Data on total mortality should be reported as well, however, to guard against the possible introduction of harmful treatments.

Peer Review reports

Background

Disease specific mortality is often used as outcome rather than total mortality in clinical trials. This approach assumes that the classification of cause of death is unbiased. However, a comparison of noncancer death rates in cancer patients with noncancer death rates in a matched population showed that use of cancer specific mortality may underestimate the mortality related to cancer, and that treatment-related deaths seemed to have been omitted from cancer mortality [1]. A review of cancer screening trials also identified inconsistencies between disease specific mortality and all-cause mortality [2], and it has been shown that biased misclassification of cause of death can give a spurious advantage to aggressive cancer treatments over less aggressive treatments [3].

For antifungal agents, a higher incidence of bacterial infections has been reported which might be a class effect related to the azole drugs [4], and itraconazole is associated with congestive heart failure [5]. As aggressive treatment may increase mortality due to treatment but decrease mortality due to the disease in question, bias in classification of cause of death may influence the results of the trials. According to the recommendations of the CONSORT Group all deaths should be reported regardless of cause [6].

In this study we explored whether use of fungal infection-related mortality as outcome rather than total mortality leads to bias in trials of antifungal agents in cancer patients. Most patients with invasive fungal infection are suffering from severe underlying conditions [7], and as fungal infections are difficult to diagnose, misclassification of cause of death may occur. Accordingly, in autopsy studies many patients were considered to have died from a fungal infection that was not suspected or confirmed antemortem [8].

Methods

We used a sample consisting of trials included in 4 systematic reviews concerning prophylactic or empirical treatment in patients with cancer and neutropenia at risk for fungal infections, which we have published previously [4, 9–11]. According to our protocol, trials had to be randomised, published as full papers, include mainly cancer patients and report on at least one fungal death and one death from another cause to be included in the study. Details on overall mortality and disease specific mortality were extracted by two persons independently and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were analysed as relative risks [12] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. A fixed effect model was used since there was very little heterogeneity between the studies.

As an estimate of bias we used relative risk of death in those patients the authors considered had not died from fungal infection. Provided the two groups are still comparable after subtraction of fungal deaths from those randomised, the proportion of those who died from another cause than fungal infection would be expected to be the same in the two groups (fig. 1a). If, however, there was a bias in classification of cause of death in favour of the treated group, fewer deaths would be ascribed to fungal infection and more deaths to other causes in this group. This would result in a larger relative risk of death for those who did not die from fungal infection (fig. 1b).

Figure 1
figure 1

Relative risk of death from causes other than fungal infection in those who survived the fungal infection. Provided the two groups are still comparable after subtraction of fungal deaths from those randomised, the proportion of those who died from another cause than fungal infection would be expected to be the same in the two groups (fig. 1a). If, however, there was a bias in classification of cause of death in favour of the treated group, fewer deaths would be ascribed to fungal infection and more deaths to other causes in this group. This would result in a larger relative risk of death for those who did not die from fungal infection (fig. 1b). This risk is an estimate of bias overall: RR = (dexp/(Nexp-Fexp))/(dctr/(Nctr-Fctr)), where exp: experimental group; ctr: control group; Nexp, Nctr: numbers of randomised patients; Fexp, Fctr: numbers of deaths from fungal infection; dexp, dctr: numbers of deaths from causes other than fungal infection.

Full size image

Results

Our sample consisted of 69 trials [13–81] 30 of which met the inclusion criteria [13–42]. Thirty-one trials were excluded as they did not report the necessary mortality data, 4 were published as abstracts and in 4 trials the patients did not have cancer. The interventions were no treatment, placebo, amphotericin B, fluconazole, miconazole, itraconazole and nystatin. In all trials that compared two drugs, it was easy to decide which was the experimental one and which was the control drug.

The trials comprised 6130 patients and 869 deaths, 220 (25%) of which were ascribed to fungal infection. The relative risk of death was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75–0.96) for total mortality, 0.57 (95% CI 0.44–0.74) for fungal mortality, and 0.95 (95% CI 0.82–1.09) for mortality among those who did not die from fungal infection (see additional files 1, 2, 3 for graphs and data extracted from the studies).

Discussion

We could not support the hypothesis that use of disease specific mortality introduces bias in antifungal trials on cancer patients as our estimate of the relative risk for mortality in those who survived the fungal infection was not increased. We had expected some increase, even in the absence of any misclassification bias, since, in case of positive treatment effects, more severely ill patients would survive in the experimental group which would be expected to increase their risk of death, compared with surviving patients in the control group. It should be noted, however, that the confidence interval for our risk estimate, 0.82–1.09, is compatible with the possible existence of minor bias.

Subgroup analyses should generally be discouraged when a null hypothesis of no difference (no bias in our case) could not be rejected. However, we did an exploratory analysis where we included only those trials that were not blinded since the risk of bias is largest in these trials. The total number of deaths among those who survived the fungal infection was 255, as compared with 649 for the corresponding analysis for all the trials. The relative mortality risk among those who did not die from fungal infection was 0.90 (95% CI 0.72–1.14), which is very similar to our estimate of 0.95 (95% CI 0.82–1.09) for all the trials.

Conclusion

We conclude that it seems to be reliable to use fungal mortality as the primary outcome in trials of antifungal agents. Data on total mortality should be reported as well, however, to guard against the possible introduction of harmful treatments as we cannot know whether our findings will apply to future antifungal agents.

References

  1. Brown BW, Brauner C, Minotte MC: Noncancer deaths in white adult cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993, 85: 979-87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Black WC, Haggstrom DA, Welch HG: All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002, 94: 167-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Newschaffer CJ, Otani K, McDonald MK, Penberthy LT: Causes of death in elderly prostate cancer patients and in a comparison nonprostate cancer cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000, 92 (8): 613-21. 10.1093/jnci/92.8.613.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gøtzsche PC, Johansen HK: Routine versus selective antifungal administration for control of fungal infections in patients with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002, CD000026-2

  5. Ahmad SR, Singer SJ, Leissa BG: Congestive heart failure associated with itraconazole. Lancet. 2001, 357 (9270): 1766-7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04891-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schultz K, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group: Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2004, 141 (10): 781-788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Groll AH, Shah PM, Mentzel C, Schneider M, Just-Nuebling G, Huebner K: Trends in the postmortem epidemiology of invasive fungal infections at a university hospital. Journal of infection. 1996, 33: 23-32. 10.1016/S0163-4453(96)92700-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vogeser M, Wanders A, Haas A, Ruckdeschel G: A four-year review of fatal aspergillosis. European Journal of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. 1999, 18: 42-45. 10.1007/s100960050224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Johansen HK, Gøtzsche PC: Amphotericin B versus fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002, CD000239-2

  10. Gøtzsche PC, Johansen HK: Nystatin prophylaxis and treatment in severely immunodepressed patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002, CD002033-4

  11. Johansen HK, Gøtzsche PC: Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations vs amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000, CD000969-3

  12. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows. 2003, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration

  13. Akiyama H, Mori S, Tanikawa S, Sakamaki H, Onozawa Y: Fluconazole versus oral amphotericin B in preventing fungal infection in chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. Mycoses. 1993, 36: 373-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anaissie EJ, Darouiche RO, Abi Said D, Uzun O, Mera J, Gentry LO, Williams T, Kontoyiannis DP, Karl CL, Bodey GP: Management of invasive candidal infections: results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter study of fluconazole versus amphotericin B and review of the literature. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1996, 23: 964-72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bodey GP, Anaissie EJ, Elting LS, Estey E, O'Brien S, Kantarjian H: Antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction therapy for acute leukemia fluconazole versus intravenous amphotericin B. Cancer. 1994, 73: 2099-106. 10.1002/1097-0142(19940415)73:8<2099::AID-CNCR2820730814>3.0.CO;2-N.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellis ME, Clink H, Ernst P, Halim MA, Padmos A, Spence D, Kalin M, Hussain Qadri SM, Burnie J, Greer W: Controlled study of fluconazole in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies and bone marrow transplant recipients. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 1994, 13: 3-11. 10.1007/BF02026116.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group: Empiric antifungal therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. The American journal of medicine. 1989, 86: 668-72. 10.1016/0002-9343(89)90441-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldstone AH, O'Driscoll A: Early AmBisome in febrile neutropenia in patients with haematological disorders. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1994, 14 (Suppl 5): S15-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goodman JL, Greenfield R, Buell D: Prophylactic fluconazole and marrow transplantation. The New England journal of medicine. 1992, 327: 645-

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kelsey SM, Goldman JM, McCann S: Liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome) in the prophylaxis of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999, 23 (2): 163-8. 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701543.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kern W, Behre G, Rudolf T: Failure of fluconazole prophylaxis to reduce mortality or the requirement of systemic amphotericin B therapy during treatment for refractory acute myeloid leukemia: results of a prospective randomized phase III study. Cancer. 1998, German AML Cooperative Group, 83: 291-301. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980715)83:2<291::AID-CNCR13>3.3.CO;2-C.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leenders AC, Daenen S, Jansen RL, Hop WC, Lowenberg B, Wijermans PW: Liposomal amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of documented and suspected neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections. British Journal of Haematology. 1998, 103 (1): 205-12. 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1998.00944.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Menichetti F, Del Favero A, Martino P, Bucaneve G, Micozzi A, D'Antonio D, Ricci P, Carotenuto M, Liso V, Nosari AM, Barbui T, Fasola G, Mandelli F, GIMEMA Infection Program: Preventing fungal infection in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia: fluconazole compared with oral amphotericin B. The GIMEMA Infection Program. Annals of internal medicine. 1994, 120: 913-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Menichetti F, Del Favero A, Martino P: Itraconazole oral solution as prophylaxis for fungal infections in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial. GIMEMA Infection Program. Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell' Adulto. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1999, 28 (2): 250-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Meunier F, Aoun M, Janssens M, Dekoster C, Paesmans M: Chemoprophylaxis of fungal infections in granulocytopenic patients using fluconazole vs oral amphotericin B. Drug Investigation. 1991, 3: 258-65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nucci M, Biasoli I, Akiti T, Silveira F, Solza C, Barreiros G: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of itraconazole capsules as antifungal prophylaxis for neutropenic patients. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2000, 30 (2): 300-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Perfect JR, Klotman ME, Gilbert CC: Prophylactic intravenous amphotericin B in neutropenic autologous bone marrow transplant recipients. The Journal of infectious diseases. 1992, 165 (5): 891-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pizzo PA, Robichaud KJ, Gill FA, Witebsky FG: Empiric antibiotic and antifungal therapy for cancer patients with prolonged fever and granulocytopenia. The American journal of medicine. 1982, 72 (1): 101-11. 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90594-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rotstein C, Bow EJ, Laverdiere M, Ioannou S, Carr D, Moghaddam N: Randomized placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole prophylaxis for neutropenic cancer patients benefit based on purpose and intensity of cytotoxic therapy. The Canadian Fluconazole Prophylaxis Study Group. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1999, 28 (2): 331-40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schaffner A, Schaffner M: Effect of prophylactic fluconazole on the frequency of fungal infections, amphotericin B use, and health care costs in patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy for hematologic neoplasias. The Journal of infectious diseases. 1995, 172 (4): 1035-41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schoffski P, Freund M, Wunder R, Petersen D, Kohne CH, Hecker H: Safety and toxicity of amphotericin B in glucose 5% or intralipid 20% in neutropenic patients with pneumonia or fever of unknown origin: randomised study. BMJ. 1998, 317 (7155): 379-84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Silling G, Fegeler W, Roos N, Essink M, Büchner T: Early empiric antifungal treatment of infections in neutropenic patients comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B/flucytosine. Mycoses. 1999, 42 (Suppl 2): 101-4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Slavin MA, Osborne B, Adams R, Levenstein M, Schoch HG, Feldman AR: Efficacy and safety of fluconazole prophylaxis for fungal infections after marrow transplantation – a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The Journal of infectious diseases. 1995, 171 (6): 1545-52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Suda T, Omine M, Tsuchiya J, Maekawa T, Muto Y, Mizoguchi H: [A co-operative study on prophylaxis of fungal infection in patients with hematological diseases: prophylactic effect of oral administration of amphotericin B] [Japanese]. [Rinsho Ketsueki] The Japanese journal of clinical hematology. 1980, 21 (2): 195-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tollemar J, Ringden O, Andersson S, Sundberg B, Ljungman P, Tyden G: Randomized double-blind study of liposomal amphotericin B (Ambisome) prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in bone marrow transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplantation. 1993, 12 (6): 577-82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vreugdenhil G, Van Dijke BJ, Donnelly JP, Novakova IRO, Raemaekers JMM, Hoogkamp-Korstanje MAA: Efficacy of itraconazole in the prevention of fungal infections among neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies and intensive chemotherapy. A double blind, placebo controlled study. Leukemia & lymphoma. 1993, 11 (5–6): 353-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Walsh TJ, Finberg RW, Arndt C, Hiemenz J, Schwartz C, Bodensteiner D: Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1999, 340 (10): 764-71. 10.1056/NEJM199903113401004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. White MH, Bowden RA, Sandler ES, Graham ML, Noskin GA, Wingard JR: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion vs. amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of fever and neutropenia. Clinical Infectious Diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1998, 27 (2): 296-302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wingard JR, Vaughan WP, Braine HG, Merz WG, Saral R: Prevention of fungal sepsis in patients with prolonged neutropenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous miconazole. The American journal of medicine. 1987, 83 (6): 1103-10. 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90949-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Winston DJ, Hathorn JW, Schuster MG, Schiller GJ, Territo MC: A multicenter, randomized trial of fluconazole versus amphotericin B for empiric antifungal therapy of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. The American journal of medicine. 2000, 108: 282-9. 10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00457-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wolff SN, Fay J, Stevens D, Herzig RH, Pohlman B, Bolwell B, Lynch J, Ericson S, Freytes CO, LeMaistre F, Collins R, Pineiro L, Greer J, Stein R, Goodman SA, Dummer S: Fluconazole vs low-dose amphotericin B for the prevention of fungal infections in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation: a study of the North American Marrow Transplant Group. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000, 25 (8): 853-9. 10.1038/sj.bmt.1702233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Young GA, Bosly A, Gibbs DL, Durrant S: A double-blind comparison of fluconazole and nystatin in the prevention of candidiasis in patients with leukaemia. Antifungal Prophylaxis Study Group. European Journal of Cancer. 1999, 35 (8): 1208-13. 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00102-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Acuna G, Winston DJ, Young LS: Ketoconazole prophylaxis of fungal infections in the granulocytopenic patient: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Program and Abstracts of 22nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1981, American Society for Microbiology, [abstract] 852

    Google Scholar 

  44. Benhamou E, Hartmann O, Nogues C, Maraninchi D, Valteau D, Lemerle J: Does ketoconazole prevent fungal infection in children treated with high dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation? Results of a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1991, 7 (2): 127-31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Brammer KW: Management of fungal infection in neutropenic patients with fluconazole. Hamatologie und Bluttransfusion. 1990, 33: 546-50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Brincker H: Prophylactic treatment with miconazole in patients highly predisposed to fungal infection. A placebo-controlled double-blind study. Acta medica Scandinavica. 1978, 204 (1–2): 123-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brincker H: Prevention of mycosis in granulocytopenic patients with prophylactic ketoconazole treatment. Mykosen. 1983, 26 (5): 242-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Buchanan AG, Riben PD, Rayner EN, Parker SE, Ronald AR, Louie TJ: Nystatin prophylaxis of fungal colonization and infection in granulocytopenic patients: correlation of colonization and clinical outcome. Clin Invest Med. 1985, 8: 139-47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Caillot D, Reny G, Solary E, Casasnovas O, Chavanet P, Bonnotte B: A controlled trial of the tolerance of amphotericin B infused in dextrose or in Intralipid in patients with haematological malignancies. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1994, 33 (3): 603-13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Caselli D, Arico M, Michelone G, Cavanna C, Nespoli L, Burgio GR: Antifungal chemoprophylaxis in cancer children: a prospective randomized controlled study. Microbiologica. 1990, 13: 347-51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Egger T, Gratwohl A, Tichelli A, Uhr M, Stebler Gysi C, Passweg J, Pless M, Wernli M, Buser U, Wuhrmann J, Frei R, Nissen C, Speck B: Comparison of fluconazole with oral polyenes in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients. A prospective, randomized, single-center study. Supportive Care in Cancer. 1995, 3: 139-46. 10.1007/BF00365855.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Epstein JB, Vickars L, Spinelli J, Reece D: Efficacy of chlorhexidine and nystatin rinses in prevention of oral complications in leukemia and bone marrow transplantation. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology. 1992, 73: 682-9. 10.1016/0030-4220(92)90009-F.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Estey E, Maksymiuk A, Smith T, Fainstein V, Keating M, McCredie KB: Infection prophylaxis in acute leukemia. Comparative effectiveness of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, ketoconazole, and a combination of the two. Archives of internal medicine. 1984, 144 (8): 1562-8. 10.1001/archinte.144.8.1562.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Feusner J, Robinson P, Seibel N, Reaman G, Waskerwitz M, Thompson C: Fluconazole (FLU) vs nystatin (NYS) for the prevention of fungal infection in neutropenic children receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1994, 13: [Abstract] A1533, p. 444

    Google Scholar 

  55. Flynn PM, Cunningham CK, Kerkering T, San Jorge AR, Peters VB, Pitel PA, Harris J, Gilbert G, Castagnaro L, Robinson P: Oropharyngeal candidiasis in immunocompromised children: a randomized, multicenter study of orally administered fluconazole suspension versus nystatin. The Multicenter Fluconazole Study Group. J Pediatr. 1995, 127: 322-8. 10.1016/S0022-3476(95)70321-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Fukuda M, Hirashima K, Kurane R, Abe T, Sampi K, Tominaga K: [Empiric therapy with fluconazole in granulocytopenic patients with carcinoma or leukemia] [Japanese]. The Japanese journal of antibiotics. 1994, 47 (8): 1065-70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Groll AH, Just-Nuebling G, Kurz M, Mueller C, Nowak-Goettl U, Schwabe D, Shah PM, Kornhuber B: Fluconazole versus nystatin in the prevention of candida infections in children and adolescents undergoing remission induction or consolidation chemotherapy for cancer. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1997, 40: 855-62. 10.1093/jac/40.6.855.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hansen RM, Reinerio N, Sohnle PG, Abrams RA, Ritch PS, Libnoch JA: Ketoconazole in the prevention of candidiasis in patients with cancer. A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Archives of internal medicine. 1987, 147 (4): 710-2. 10.1001/archinte.147.4.710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hughes WT, Bartley DL, Patterson GG, Tufenkeji H: Ketoconazole and candidiasis: a controlled study. The Journal of Infectious diseases. 1983, 147 (6): 1060-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lake DE, Kunzweiler J, Beer M, Buell DN, Islam MZ: Fluconazole versus amphotericin B in the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in cancer patients. Chemotherapy. 1996, 42: 308-14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lumbreras C, Cuervas-Mons V, Jara P, del Palacio A, Turrion VS, Barrios C, Moreno E, Noriega AR, Paya CV: Randomized trial of fluconazole versus nystatin for the prophylaxis of Candida infection following liver transplantation. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1996, 174: 583-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Malik IA, Moid I, Aziz Z, Khan S, Suleman M: A randomized comparison of fluconazole with amphotericin B as empiric anti-fungal agents in cancer patients with prolonged fever and neutropenia. The American journal of medicine. 1998, 105 (6): 478-83. 10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00326-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Marie JP, Lapierre V, Pico J, Vekhoff A, Molina L, Andremont A, Basset D, Lebeau B, Michalet M, Zittoun R, Hayat M, pour le Groupe d'Etude des Aplasies Fébriles (G.A.F.): Etude multicentrique randomisée fluconazole iv versus amphotéricine B iv chez le patient neutropénique et fébrile. Cah Oncol. 1993, 2: 171-3.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Moreau P, Milpied N, Fayette N, Ramee JF, Harousseau JL: Reduced renal toxicity and improved clinical tolerance of amphotericin B mixed with intralipid compared with conventional amphotericin B in neutropenic patients. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1992, 30 (4): 535-41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Nath CE, Shaw PJ, Gunning R, McLachlan AJ, Earl JW: Amphotericin B in children with malignant disease: a comparison of the toxicities and pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B administered in dextrose versus lipid emulsion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999, 43 (6): 1417-23.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Nucci M, Loureiro M, Silveira F, Casali AR, Bouzas LF, Velasco E: Comparison of the toxicity of amphotericin B in 5% dextrose with that of amphotericin B in fat emulsion in a randomized trial with cancer patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999, 43 (6): 1445-8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Ninane J: A multicentre study of fluconazole versus oral polyenes in the prevention of fungal infection in children with hematological or oncological malignancies. Multicentre Study Group. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases: official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology. 1994, 13: 330-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Palmblad J, Lönnqvist B, Carlsson B, Grimfors G, Järnmark M, Lerner R: Oral ketoconazole prophylaxis for Candida infections during induction therapy for acute leukaemia in adults: more bacteraemias. Journal of Internal medicine. 1992, 231 (4): 363-70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Pascual B, Ayestaran A, Montoro JB, Oliveras J, Estibalez A, Julia A: Administration of lipid-emulsion versus conventional amphotericin B in patients with neutropenia. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 1995, 29 (12): 1197-201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Philpott-Howard JN, Wade JJ, Mufti GJ, Brammer KW, Ehninger G: Randomized comparison of oral fluconazole versus oral polyenes for the prevention of fungal infection in patients at risk of neutropenia. Multicentre Study Group. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 1993, 31 (6): 973-84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pons V, Greenspan D, Lozada-Nur F, McPhail L, Gallant JE, Tunkel A, Johnson CC, McCarty J, Panzer H, Levenstein M, Barranco A, Green S: Oropharyngeal candidiasis in patients with AIDS: randomized comparison of fluconazole versus nystatin oral suspensions. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 1997, 24: 1204-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Prentice HG, Hann IM, Herbrecht R, Aoun M, Kvaloy S, Catovsky D: A randomized comparison of liposomal versus conventional amphotericin B for the treatment of pyrexia of unknown origin in neutropenic patients. British Journal of Haematology. 1997, 98 (3): 711-8. 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1997.2473063.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Riley DK, Pavia AT, Beatty PG: The prophylactic use of low-dose amphotericin B in bone marrow transplant patients. The American journal of medicine. 1994, 97 (6): 509-14. 10.1016/0002-9343(94)90345-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sandler ES, Mustafa MM, Tkaczewski I, Graham ML, Morrison VA, Green M: Use of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion in children. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology: official journal of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. 2000, 22 (3): 242-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Savino JA, Agarwal N, Wry P, Policastro A, Cerabona T, Austria L: Routine prophylactic antifungal agents (clotrimazole, ketoconazole, and nystatin) in nontransplant/nonburned critically ill surgical and trauma patients. The Journal of Trauma. 1994, 36: 20-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Siegel M, Murphy M, Counts GW, Meyers JD: Prophylactic ketoconazole for the prevention of fungal infection in bone marrow transplant patients. 23rd Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC). 1982, American Society for Microbiology, [abstract] 166

    Google Scholar 

  77. Teshima H, Masaoka T, Hiraoka A, Miyazaki T, Imamura M, Kitabayashi A: A randomised study to compare oral fluconazole with oral amphotericin B for suppression of fungal flora and prevention of fungal infection in bone marrow transplantation recipients. Drug Evaluation (Konnichi No Ishoku). 1994, 7: 535-42.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Tian D, Jian H, Cui X, Kan M, Xi J, Su L, Zhen S, Sao W, Li Y, Wang T: Prospective study of fluconazole in the prevention of fungal infections in neutropenic patients with acute leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. 20th International Congress of Chemotherapy, June 29 to July 3 1997, Sydney, Australia. 1997, 87: [abstract] 3246

    Google Scholar 

  79. Viscoli C, Castagnola E, Van Lint MT, Moroni C, Garaventa A, Rossi MR, Fanci R, Menichetti F, Caselli D, Giacchino M, Congiu M: Fluconazole versus amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy of unexplained fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients: a pragmatic, multicentre, prospective and randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Cancer. 1996, 32A (5): 814-20. 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00619-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Winston DJ, Chandrasekar PH, Lazarus HM, Goodman JL, Silber JL, Horowitz H: Fluconazole prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients with acute leukemia. Results of a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial. Annals of internal medicine. 1993, 118 (7): 495-503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Yamac K, Senol E, Haznedar R: Prophylactic use of fluconazole in neutropenic cancer patients. Postgraduate medical journal. 1995, 71 (835): 284-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Pre-publication history

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100, København Ø, Denmark

      Anne K Due, Helle K Johansen & Peter C Gøtzsche

    Authors
    1. Anne K Due
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Helle K Johansen
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Peter C Gøtzsche
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Peter C Gøtzsche.

    Additional information

    Competing interests

    The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

    Authors' contributions

    PCG conceived the study; AKD wrote the draft protocol and manuscript; all authors contributed to data extraction, writing the protocol and the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.

    Anne K Due and Peter C Gøtzsche contributed equally to this work.

    Electronic supplementary material

    Additional file 1: Total mortality Graph and details on the computation of RR for total mortality (JPEG 220 KB)

    12874_2005_165_MOESM2_ESM.jpeg

    Additional file 2: Fungal mortality Graph and details on the computation of RR for mortality from fungal infection (JPEG 226 KB)

    12874_2005_165_MOESM3_ESM.jpeg

    Additional file 3: Other mortality in survivors of fungal infection Graph and details on the computation of RR for mortality in patients classified as not dying from fungal infection (JPEG 223 KB)

    Authors’ original submitted files for images

    Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

    Authors’ original file for figure 1

    Rights and permissions

    Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Due, A.K., Johansen, H.K. & Gøtzsche, P.C. Fungal infection-related mortality versus total mortality as an outcome in trials of antifungal agents. BMC Med Res Methodol 6, 40 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-40

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-40

    Keywords

    BMC Medical Research Methodology

    ISSN: 1471-2288

    Contact us