Publication: Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial
dc.contributor.author | Ernst Rüdiger Kuse | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ploenchan Chetchotisakd | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Clovis Arns da Cunha | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Markus Ruhnke | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Carlos Barrios | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Digumarti Raghunadharao | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Jagdev Singh Sekhon | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Antonio Freire | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Venkatasubramanian Ramasubramanian | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ignace Demeyer | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Marcio Nucci | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Amorn Leelarasamee | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Frédérique Jacobs | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Johan Decruyenaere | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Didier Pittet | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Andrew J. Ullmann | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Olivier Lortholary | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Sonja Koblinger | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Heike Diekmann-Berndt | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Oliver A. Cornely | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Klinik für Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Khon Kaen University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | R Desembargador Vieira Cavalcante | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Dayanand Medical College and Hospital | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Santa Casa de Belo Horizonte | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Apollo Hospitals | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Hospital Erasme | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | University Hospital of Ghent | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Hopitaux universitaires de Geneve | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Klinikum der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universitat und Fachbereich Medizin | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | University of Texas Medical School at Houston | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Hopital Necker Enfants Malades | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Astellas Pharma GmbH | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Uniklinik Koln | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-08-24T02:05:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-24T02:05:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2007-05-05 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Invasive candidosis is increasingly prevalent in seriously ill patients. Our aim was to compare micafungin with liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of adult patients with candidaemia or invasive candidosis. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, multinational non-inferiority study to compare micafungin (100 mg/day) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg per day) as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as both a clinical and a mycological response at the end of treatment. Primary analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106288. Findings: 264 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment with micafungin; 267 were randomly assigned to receive liposomal amphotericin B. 202 individuals in the micafungin group and 190 in the liposomal amphotericin B group were included in the per-protocol analyses. Treatment success was observed for 181 (89·6%) patients treated with micafungin and 170 (89·5%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions, after stratification by neutropenic status at baseline, was 0·7% (95% CI -5·3 to 6·7). Efficacy was independent of the Candida spp and primary site of infection, as well as neutropenic status, APACHE II score, and whether a catheter was removed or replaced during the study. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events-including those that were serious or led to treatment discontinuation-with micafungin than there were with liposomal amphotericin B. Interpretation: Micafungin was as effective as-and caused fewer adverse events than-liposomal amphotericin B as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Lancet. Vol.369, No.9572 (2007), 1519-1527 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60605-9 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 01406736 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 2-s2.0-34247564562 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/24872 | |
dc.rights | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | SCOPUS | en_US |
dc.source.uri | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=34247564562&origin=inward | en_US |
dc.subject | Medicine | en_US |
dc.title | Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
mu.datasource.scopus | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=34247564562&origin=inward | en_US |