Diagnostic Efficacy of Aspergillus Galactomannan Lateral Flow Assay in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: A rapid and reliable diagnostic test is needed to reduce mortality through early diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with hematological malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of serum and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) Aspergillus galactomannan lateral flow assay (GM-LFA) in IA diagnosis and determine the correlation of GM-LFA with GM enzyme immunoassay (GM-EIA) in patients with hematological malignancies. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, we used serum and BAL fluid samples from patients with hematological malignancies and suspected IA and performed GM-LFA and GM-EIA. According to the EORTC/MSGERC criteria, patients were grouped as proven (n = 6), probable (n = 22), possible IA (n = 55), or no IA (n = 88). The performance of serum GM-LFA at 0.5 optical density index (ODI) and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Spearman's correlation analysis and kappa statistics were performed to determine the agreement between the tests. RESULTS: GM-LFA showed an AUC of 0.832 in proven/probable IA (sensitivity [SEN], specificity [SPE], negative predictive value [NPV], and diagnostic accuracy were 75%, 100%, 92.6%, and 93.9%, respectively, at a 0.5 ODI) versus that in no IA. A moderate positive correlation was noted between the GM-LFA and GM-EIA scores (p = 0.01). The observed agreement between the tests at 0.5 ODI was almost perfect (p < 0.001). After excluding patients who received mold-active antifungal prophylaxis or treatment, the SEN, SPE, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy for proven/probable IA were 76.2%, 100%, 93.3%, and 94.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Serum GM-LFA demonstrated high discriminatory power and good diagnostic performance for IA in patients with hematological malignancies.

Safety Assessment and Power Analyses in Published Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To investigate a certain set of methodological limitations in published anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Descriptive methodological study. METHODS: We did a PubMed search with the terms "bevacizumab OR ranibizumab OR pegaptanib OR aflibercept" and the limitations "humans" and "randomized controlled trials" in 15 of the highest-impact-factor general medicine and ophthalmology journals. We included only RCTs published as original articles, where an anti-VEGF agent was used to treat eye disease. Two independent observers (O.A., P.K.) read through each article and classified the articles according to a predefined set of criteria. RESULTS: The PubMed search yielded 209 articles, and 93 were classified as eligible. In most of the studies, the study drug was bevacizumab (52.6%, n = 49), followed by ranibizumab (44.1%, n = 41), pegaptanib (7.5%, n = 7), and aflibercept (5.4%, n = 5). Basic epidemiologic data, including sex distribution (2.2%, n = 2) and mean age (3.2%, n = 3), were missing in 3.2% of the published RCTs. The power calculation for efficacy was mentioned in 48% (n = 45) of the published work, and a power calculation for safety was considered in only 1 study (1.1%). Only 6 RCTs (6.5%) reported negative results. CONCLUSIONS: Power calculations for efficacy, an important component of an RCT, were missing in 51% of the RCTs we surveyed, while a power calculation for safety was only present in 1.1%. Around 60% of the published RCTs were labeled as an "efficacy and safety trial," and none of those studies had a power calculation for safety.