Ernst Rüdiger KusePloenchan ChetchotisakdClovis Arns da CunhaMarkus RuhnkeCarlos BarriosDigumarti RaghunadharaoJagdev Singh SekhonAntonio FreireVenkatasubramanian RamasubramanianIgnace DemeyerMarcio NucciAmorn LeelarasameeFrédérique JacobsJohan DecruyenaereDidier PittetAndrew J. UllmannLuis Ostrosky-ZeichnerOlivier LortholarySonja KoblingerHeike Diekmann-BerndtOliver A. CornelyKlinik für Viszeral- und TransplantationschirurgieKhon Kaen UniversityR Desembargador Vieira CavalcanteCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinPontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do SulNizam's Institute of Medical SciencesDayanand Medical College and HospitalSanta Casa de Belo HorizonteApollo HospitalsOnze Lieve Vrouw HospitalUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroMahidol UniversityHospital ErasmeUniversity Hospital of GhentHopitaux universitaires de GeneveKlinikum der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universitat und Fachbereich MedizinUniversity of Texas Medical School at HoustonHopital Necker Enfants MaladesAstellas Pharma GmbHUniklinik Koln2018-08-242018-08-242007-05-05Lancet. Vol.369, No.9572 (2007), 1519-1527014067362-s2.0-34247564562https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/24872Background: 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.Mahidol UniversityMedicineArticleSCOPUS10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60605-9