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

BACKGROUND: 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.

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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).

CONCLUSION: 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.