No abstract

This work was supported using an education grant from Amgen Canada to promote efforts to increase living-donor kidney transplantation. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, writing, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Background + Objectives The echinocandins, amphotericin B preparations, voriconazole and fluconazole are approved for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, though it remains unclear which agent is most effective. In order to answer this question, we performed a systematic review and network meta‐analysis of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated these agents in comparison. Methods Four electronic databases were searched from database inception to 8 October 2020. RCTs comparing triazoles, echinocandins or amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive candidiasis or candidemia were included. Random effect Bayesian network meta‐analysis methods were used to compare treatment outcomes. Results Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of the 3528 patients included from these trials, 1531 were randomised to receive an echinocandin, 944 to amphotericin B and 1053 to a triazole. For all forms of invasive candidiasis, echinocandins were associated with the highest rate of treatment success when compared to amphotericin B (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04–1.92) and the triazoles (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35–2.51). Rank probability analysis favoured echinocandins as the most effective choice 98% of the time. Overall survival did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusions Among patients with invasive candidiasis, echinocandins had the best clinical outcomes and should remain the first‐line agents in the treatment of invasive candidiasis.

No abstract

IntroductionTreatment of cutaneous and mucosal leishmaniasis (CL and ML, respectively) must be individualised as there is no universal therapeutic approach. Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) is an accessible and relatively safe treatment that has been increasingly used for the treatment of CL and ML. While several descriptive studies have been published on the efficacy and safety of L-AmB, there are no interventional studies. Moreover, the findings from published studies have not yet been integrated and synthesised. Therefore, we aim to evaluate and consolidate the descriptive evidence on the efficacy and the safety of Intravenous L-AmB treatment for CL and ML in both the New and Old World.Methods and analysesA systematic review of all relevant study types with no restriction on date or language of publication will be conducted. Online databases including MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Scopus, Ovid and WHO databases were searched on 3 April 2020. The search included all study types that assess Intravenous L-AmB treatment for CL and ML in humans. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study Design strategy and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be used to determine which studies will be selected for final inclusion. The quality of included case series and case reports will be assessed using modified quality assessment tools. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be provided and the primary outcome and secondary outcome of interest, response rate and adverse events rate, respectively, and the 95% CI will be ascertained. Estimates from individual studies will be pooled using random-effects model.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require formal ethical approval since no primary data will be collected. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020173440.