4.5 Article

Efficacy of micafungin in invasive candidiasis caused by common Candida species with special emphasis on non-albicans Candida species

期刊

MYCOSES
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 79-89

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/myc.12104

关键词

Micafungin; invasive candidiasis; Candida albicans; C; glabrata; C; tropicalis; C; parapsilosis

资金

  1. Actelion
  2. Astellas
  3. Basilea
  4. Bayer
  5. Biocryst
  6. Celgene
  7. F2G
  8. Genzyme
  9. Gilead
  10. Merck/Schering
  11. Optimer
  12. Pfizer
  13. Quintiles
  14. Viropharma
  15. Merck Canada
  16. Pfizer Inc.
  17. T2 Biosystems
  18. MSD (Schering-Plough)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The incidence of invasive candidiasis caused by non-albicans Candida (NAC) spp. is increasing. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of micafungin, caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B in patients with invasive candidiasis and candidaemia caused by different Candida spp. This post hoc analysis used data obtained from two randomised phase III trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of micafungin vs. caspofungin and micafungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B. Treatment success, clinical response, mycological response and mortality were evaluated in patients infected with C. albicans and NAC spp. Treatment success rates in patients with either C. albicans or NAC infections were similar. Outcomes were similar for micafungin, caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B. Candida albicans was the most prevalent pathogen recovered (41.0%), followed by C. tropicalis (17.9%), C. parapsilosis (14.4%), C. glabrata (10.4%), multiple Candida spp. (7.3%) and C. krusei (3.2%). Age, primary diagnosis (i.e. candidaemia or invasive candidiasis), previous corticosteroid therapy and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score were identified as potential predictors of treatment success and mortality. Micafungin, caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B exhibit favourable treatment response rates that are comparable for patients infected with different Candida spp.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据