4.7 Article

Randomized, double-blind, Multicenter study of caspofungin versus amphotericin B for treatment of oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiases

Journal

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 451-457

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.46.2.451-457.2002

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Caspofungin is an antifungal agent of the novel echinocandin class. We investigated its efficacy, safety, and tolerability as therapy for oropharyngeal and/or esophageal candidiasis in a phase II dose-ranging study. Patients were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either caspofungin acetate (35, 50, or 70 mg) or amphotericin B (0.5 mg/g of body weight) intravenously once daily for 7 to 14 days. A favorable response required both complete resolution of symptoms and quantifiable improvement of mucosal lesions 3 to 4 days after discontinuation of study drug. Efficacy was assessed using a modified intent-to-treat analysis. No hypothesis testing of efficacy was planned or performed. Of 140 enrolled patients, 63% had esophageal involvement and 98% were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV (median CD4 count, 30/mm(3)). A modestly higher proportion of patients in each of the caspofungin groups (74 to 91%) achieved favorable responses compared to amphotericin B recipients (63%), but there was considerable overlap in the 95% confidence intervals surrounding these point estimates. Similar trends were found in the subgroups with esophageal involvement, a history of fluconazole failure, and CD4 counts of less than or equal to50/mm(3) A smaller proportion of patients receiving any dose of caspofungin experienced drug-related adverse events compared to patients given standard doses of conventional amphotericin B (P < 0.01). Caspofungin provided a generally well-tolerated parenteral therapeutic option for HIV-infected patients with oropharyngeal and/or esophageal candidiasis in this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available