A double-blind comparative study of the safety and efficacy of caspofungin versus micafungin in the treatment of candidiasis and aspergillosis

S Kohno, K Izumikawa, M Yoshida, Y Takesue, S Oka, K Kamei, Y Miyazaki, T Yoshinari, N A Kartsonis, Y Niki, S Kohno, K Izumikawa, M Yoshida, Y Takesue, S Oka, K Kamei, Y Miyazaki, T Yoshinari, N A Kartsonis, Y Niki

Abstract

The safety and efficacy profile of caspofungin and micafungin in Japanese patients with fungal infections were directly compared in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The proportion of patients who developed significant drug-related adverse event(s) (defined as a serious drug-related adverse event or a drug-related adverse event leading to study therapy discontinuation) was compared in 120 patients [caspofungin 50 mg, or 50 mg following a 70-mg loading dose on Day 1 (hereinafter, 70/50 mg) group: 60 patients; micafungin 150 mg: 60 patients]. The overall response rate was primarily evaluated in the per-protocol set (PPS) population. The proportion of patients who developed significant drug-related adverse events was 5.0 % (3/60) in the caspofungin group and 10.0 % (6/60) in the micafungin group [95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference: -15.9 %, 5.2 %]. The favorable overall response in the PPS population for patients with esophageal candidiasis, invasive candidiasis, and chronic pulmonary aspergillosis including aspergilloma was 100.0 % (6/6), 100.0 % (3/3), and 46.7 % (14/30) in the caspofungin group, and 83.3 % (5/6), 100.0 % (1/1), and 42.4 % (14/33) in the micafungin group, respectively. In Japanese patients with Candida or Aspergillus infections, there was no statistical difference in the safety between caspofungin and micafungin. Consistent with other data on these two agents, the efficacy of caspofungin and micafungin was similar.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Analysis populations and reasons for exclusion by treatment group. APaT: all patients as treated, FAS: full analysis set, PPS: per-protocol set

References

    1. Kriengkauykiat J, Ito JI, Dadwal SS. Epidemiology and treatment approaches in management of invasive fungal infections. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:175–191.
    1. Kume H, Yamazaki T, Togano T, Abe M, Tanuma H, Kawana S, et al. Epidemiology of visceral mycoses in autopsy cases in Japan: comparison of the data from 1989, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2007 in annual of pathological autopsy cases in Japan. Med Mycol J. 2011;52:117–127. doi: 10.3314/jjmm.52.117.
    1. Villanueva A, Gotuzzo E, Arathoon EG, Noriega LM, Kartsonis NA, Lupinacci RJ, et al. A randomized double-blind study of caspofungin versus fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis. Am J Med. 2002;113:294–299. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01191-9.
    1. Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C, Colombo AL, Thompson-Moya L, Smietana J, et al. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:2020–2029. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021585.
    1. Maertens J, Raad I, Petrikkos G, Boogaerts M, Selleslag D, Petersen FB, et al. Efficacy and safety of caspofungin for treatment of invasive aspergillosis in patients refractory to or intolerant of conventional antifungal therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1563–1571. doi: 10.1086/423381.
    1. Walsh TJ, Teppler H, Donowitz GR, Maertens JA, Baden LR, Dmoszynska A, et al. Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1391–1402. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040446.
    1. Pappas PG, Rotstein CM, Betts RF, Nucci M, Talwar D, De Waele JJ, et al. Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:883–893. doi: 10.1086/520980.
    1. Kubiak DW, Bryar JM, McDonnell AM, Delgado-Flores JO, Mui E, Baden LR, et al. Evaluation of caspofungin or micafungin as empiric antifungal therapy in adult patients with persistent febrile neutropenia: a retrospective, observational, sequential cohort analysis. Clin Ther. 2010;32:637–648. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.04.005.
    1. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline (1994) Clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting. Recommended for Adoption at Step 4 of the ICH Process on 27 October 1994 by the ICH Steering Committee. Available online at:
    1. DCTD, NCI, NIH, DHHS (2003) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0. Available online at: . Accessed 9 August 2006
    1. Villanueva A, Arathoon EG, Gotuzzo E, Berman RS, DiNubile MJ, Sable CA. A randomized double-blind study of caspofungin versus amphotericin for the treatment of candidal esophagitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1529–1535. doi: 10.1086/323401.
    1. Rex JH, Alexander BD, Andes D, Arthington-Skaggs B, Brown SD, Chaturveli V et al (2008) Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi; Approved standard—second edition (M38-A2). Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Wayne, PA, vol. 28, no. 16
    1. Rex JH, Alexander BD, Andes D, Arthington-Skaggs B, Brown SD, Chaturveli V et al (2008) Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts; Approved standard—third edition (M27-A3). Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Wayne, PA, vol. 28, no. 14
    1. Hanadate T, Wakasugi M, Sogabe K, Kobayashi T, Horita H, Kawamura I, et al. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of micafungin in Japanese patients with deep mycosis: a post-marketing survey report. J Infect Chemother. 2011;17:622–632. doi: 10.1007/s10156-011-0219-0.
    1. The Japanese Mycology Study Group, editor. Guidelines for management of deep-seated mycoses 2007. Tokyo: Kyowa Kikaku; 2007.
    1. Pfaller MA, Castanheira M, Messer SA, Moet GJ, Jones RN. Echinocandin and triazole antifungal susceptibility profiles for Candida spp., Cryptococcus neoformans, and Aspergillus fumigatus: application of new CLSI clinical breakpoints and epidemiologic cutoff values to characterize resistance in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2009) Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;69:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.08.013.
    1. de Wet N, Llanos-Cuentas A, Suleiman J, Baraldi E, Krantz EF, Della Negra M, et al. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose–response study of micafungin compared with fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in HIV-positive patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:842–849. doi: 10.1086/423377.
    1. Kohno S, Izumikawa K, Ogawa K, Kurashima A, Okimoto N, Amitani R, et al. Intravenous micafungin versus voriconazole for chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: a multicenter trial in Japan. J Infect. 2010;61:410–418. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2010.08.005.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다