↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of the safety of voriconazole in definitive, empirical, and prophylactic therapies for invasive fungal infections

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Meta-analysis of the safety of voriconazole in definitive, empirical, and prophylactic therapies for invasive fungal infections
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2913-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuanming Xing, Lu Chen, Yan Feng, Yan Zhou, Yajing Zhai, Jun Lu

Abstract

Voriconazole has been used in the treatment and prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) while its wide use was limited by some frequent adverse events, especially neurotoxicity, hepatotoxicity and even renal disruption. The aim of this study was to comprehensively compare voriconazole-induced toxicity, including tolerability, neurotoxicity, visual toxicity, hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity with the composite of other antifungals commonly used in clinic. Bibliography databases were searched to select randomized controlled trials providing information about the incidence of toxicity referred above. A total of 4122 patients from 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of individual types of toxicity showed that there was a significant difference between voriconazole and the composite of other antifungal agents. The primary outcome, the tolerability of voriconazole was slightly inferior (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.21-2.40, P = 0.002) and it is noteworthy that the probabilities of neurotoxicity and visual toxicity were around twice higher and six-fold for voriconazole compared with the counterpart (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.05-3.75, P = 0.03 and OR = 6.50, 95% CI = 2.93-14.41, P < 0.00001, respectively). Hepatotoxicity was more common in voriconazole group (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.17-2.19, P = 0.003) whereas its pooled risk of nephrotoxicity was about half of the composite of other five antifungal agents (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.84, P = 0.01). Our analysis has revealed differences in multiple types of toxicity induced by VRC versus other antifungals and quantified the corresponding pooled risks, which could provide an alternative for patients with a certain antifungal intolerance and help the clinician to select the optimal intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Unspecified 4 24%
Student > Master 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Unspecified 4 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#10,963,057
of 12,371,405 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,970
of 4,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,347
of 350,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#266
of 337 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,371,405 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,561 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 337 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.