There are various studies that have addressed the use of Cyclosporine among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, to date there is hardly any concise and systematically structured evidence that debate on the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine in AMI patients. The aim of this review is to systematically summarize the overall evidence from published trials, and to conduct a meta-analysis in order to determine the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine vs. placebo or control among patients with AMI. All randomized control trial (RCT) published in English language from January 2000 to August 2017 were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of six RCTs met the inclusion and were hence included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the performed meta-analysis, no significant difference was found between Cyclosporine and placebo in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (mean difference 1.88; 95% CI -0.99 to 4.74; P = 0.2), mortality rate (OR 1.01; 95% Cl 0.60 to 1.67, P = 0.98) and recurrent MI occurrence (OR 0.65; 95% Cl 0.29 to 1.45, P = 0.29), with no evidence of heterogeneity, when given to patients with AMI. Cyclosporine also did not significantly lessen the rate of rehospitalisation in AMI patients when compared to placebo (OR 0.91; 95% Cl 0.58 to 1.42, P = 0.68), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 46%). There was also no significant improvement in heart failure events between Cyclosporine and placebo in AMI patients (OR 0.63; 95% Cl 0.31 to 1.29, P = 0.21; I2 = 80%). No serious adverse events were reported in Cyclosporine group across all studies suggesting that Cyclosporine is well tolerated when given to patients with AMI. The use of Cyclosporine in this group of patients, however, did not result in better clinical outcomes vs. placebo at improving LVEF, mortality rate, recurrent MI, rehospitalisation and heart failure event.
With increasing numbers of patients needing intensive care or who are immunosuppressed, infections caused by moulds other than Aspergillus spp or Mucorales are increasing. Although antifungal prophylaxis has shown effectiveness in preventing many invasive fungal infections, selective pressure has caused an increase of breakthrough infections caused by Fusarium, Lomentospora, and Scedosporium species, as well as by dematiaceous moulds, Rasamsonia, Schizophyllum, Scopulariopsis, Paecilomyces, Penicillium, Talaromyces and Purpureocillium species. Guidance on the complex multidisciplinary management of infections caused by these pathogens has the potential to improve prognosis. Management routes depend on the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic options. The present recommendations are part of the One World-One Guideline initiative to incorporate regional differences in the epidemiology and management of rare mould infections. Experts from 24 countries contributed their knowledge and analysed published evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of rare mould infections. This consensus document intends to provide practical guidance in clinical decision making by engaging physicians and scientists involved in various aspects of clinical management. Moreover, we identify areas of uncertainty and constraints in optimising this management.