The most optimal antifungal agent for empiric treatment of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in febrile neutropenia is controversial. Our objective was evaluate the relative efficacy of antifungals for all-cause mortality, fungal infection-related mortality and treatment response in this population. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers performed the quality assessment and extracted data independently. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the antifungals. Seventeen RCTs involving 4583 patients were included. Risk of bias of included studies was moderate. Pairwise meta-analysis indicated the treatment response rate of itraconazole was significantly better than conventional amphotericin B (RR = 1.33, 95%CI 1.10–1.61). Network meta-analysis showed that amphotericin B lipid complex, conventional amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, itraconazole and voriconazole had a significantly lower rate of fungal infection-related mortality than no antifungal treatment. Other differences in outcomes among antifungals were not statistically significant. From the rank probability plot, caspofungin appeared to be the most effective agent for all-cause mortality and fungal infection-related mortality, whereas micafungin tended to be superior for treatment response. The results were stable after excluding RCTs with high risk of bias, whereas micafungin had the lowest fungal infection-related mortality. Our results highlighted the necessity of empiric antifungal treatment and indicates that echinocandins appeared to be the most effective agents for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients based on mortality and treatment response. However, more studies are needed to determine the best antifungal agent for empiric treatment. Our systematic review has been prospectively registered in PROSPERO and the registration number was CRD42015026629.

Background and Aim: As one of the second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitors, afatinib brings survival benefits to patients with common and rare EGFR mutations. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of 30 and 40 mg of afatinib in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using qualitative and quantitative analysis methods so as to provide reference for clinical medication.Methods: The PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases were thoroughly searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality. RevMan and Stata 15.0 were used for meta-analysis.Results: Twelve cohort studies including 1290 patients for final analysis were selected; of which, 1129 patients were analyzed to measure the effectiveness outcomes and 470 patients were analyzed for safety outcomes. In patients with non-brain metastasis, the progression-free survival of the first- or second-line treatment with reduced-dose afatinib was equivalent to the conventional dose. In terms of safety, the reduced dose could significantly lower the incidence of severe diarrhea and severe rash, but not the total incidence of diarrhea, rash, and all levels of paronychia.Conclusions: The incidence of common serious adverse reactions was significantly lower with 30 mg of afatinib than with 40 mg of afatinib in patients with NSCLC. The effectiveness appeared to be similar to that in patients with non-brain metastasis. This study provides a reference for clinical dose reduction of afatinib.Systematic Review Registration: [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42021238043]